Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Cambodia

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about trade with Cambodia.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): In 1989 our exports were worth £530,000 and our imports £220,000.

Mr. Dalyell: Why does the Minister suppose that British-made mines found their way to Cambodia?

Mr. Sainsbury: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there was no military material in those exports.

Mr. McAllion: As we are dealing with Asia, will the Minister confirm that Government Whips have ordered the Scottish Office Minister with responsibility for trade to return from an important trade mission to Japan to vote against dog registration tonight? Does he agree that this represents a disgraceful order of priorities? The Minister is being asked to assist in defeating dog registration—

Mr. Speaker: Order. What does this have to do with Cambodia?

Mr. McAllion: Asia, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may not like it, but they will have to listen to my supplementary question. Is it not—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am unable to hear what the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is about while there is so much noise in the Chamber.

Mr. McAllion: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister agree that his colleague's return from Japan represents a disgraceful order of priorities? Dog registration is being elevated to a degree of importance above that of securing important Asian markets for Scottish commerce and industry. Is not it time that trade Ministers slipped the leash of the fanatic at No. 10 and started to put national priorities first?

Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman has a hazy knowledge of geography. I do not think that any of his questions arises from Question 1.

Steel Industry

Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of the steel industry in the United Kingdom.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Lilley): I am confident that the United Kingdom steel industry will continue to perform well now that all of it is in the private sector.

Mr. Clarke: Will the Secretary of State use his influence firmly to ensure that there is no dismantling of the strip mill at Ravenscraig until the Scottish Development Agency's report has been received and properly assessed, given the devastating impact of such a decision on the people of west central Scotland?

Mr. Lilley: I entirely endorse what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has said and done about this. I believe that British Steel has said that it is awaiting the results of the SDA report on the steel industry in Scotland.

Mr. Devlin: Will my right hon. Friend ensure, however, that any decisions about the future plate mill are made for proper commercial reasons? If those reasons show that such a mill should go to Teesside instead of propping up the Scottish steel industry, will not that be the correct decision?

Mr. Lilley: Of course, the location of plant is a matter for British Steel now that it is in the private sector, and it will take such decisions on a commercial basis. I am sure that no hon. Member would wish firms to be forced to locate according to political rather than commercial decisions.

Dr. Reid: How can the Minister stand there and say that he expects the steel industry to improve and prosper when there is an imminent threat to the Clydesdale tube works in Bellshill in my constituency? Is he aware that any such closure at Clydesdale would mean huge job losses and, as it is the only plant in the United Kingdom that produces seamless tubes, a further deterioration of the balance of trade? Would not it be a tragedy if an expanding North sea oil sector were to fuel the steel industries of our competitors at a time when our steel plants are closing? Will not the. Minister step in now before the threat becomes a reality and ensure that the Clydesdale tube works is saved?

Mr. Lilley: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has made it clear that we shall do all that we can to help this industry, like other industries in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, to prosper. The Opposition seem to want to fossilise the economy and prevent all change. That is a recipe for turning Scotland and the entire United Kingdom into an industrial museum.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that British Steel's record since privatisation—it has broken all production records—should give the House confidence in the way in which its management goes about its business? Although Governments can advise, they should never deem to instruct managers on how to run their businesses.

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. British Steel and the British steel industry are very successful compared with almost every other steel industry in the world. In the first nine months of this year, our steel exports were up 7 per cent. and imports were down 8 per cent. Productivity has increased threefold over the past decade. That is good news, and it is sad that it is not welcomed by the Opposition.

Mr. Kirkwood: How can the Minister satisfy the House that the Government can plan a sensible industrial and economic strategy when they have been denied essential business and financial details by companies as important as British Steel?

Mr. Lilley: I did not realise that the hon. Gentleman was in favour of state planning.

Mr. Holt: Does my right hon. Friend recall the time when the subsidy to British Steel was about £14 billion or £15 billion—a great deal of money which could have been spent on hospitals, nurses, doctors, old-age pensions, children and the other welfare measures which we are now able to afford because such money is not being poured down the drain by a nationalised British Steel?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the decade up to 1985, the total subsidy to British Steel, in present-day money, was £14 billion. It is hard to know where the Opposition expect to get such money, as they have already mortgaged the future with promises to spend on almost everything else. If they return to a state-controlled, state-regulated or nationally owned steel industry, we shall again be back in that loss-making era.

Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the Secretary of State remember that it is not the Secretary of State for Scotland but he, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who is responsible for industry and for steel? Will he therefore meet the chairman of British Steel to discuss the Clydesdale rescue plan so that we can gain a higher share of North sea work? Will he tell him of his view, and that of the Secretary of State for Scotland, that there must be no demolition or asset-stripping at Ravenscraig before there is a discussion on and examination of the Scottish Development Agency's proposals? Will he set up an action team within the Department to consider the prospects for the steel industry, and will he explain to the high-productivity work force at Ravenscraig why, five months after Ministers promised that they would press British Steel to reconsider and review the decision on the strip mill, the Department has done absolutely nothing?

Mr. Lilley: From time to time, I meet the chairman of British Steel, but it is sensible that the Secretary of State for Scotland takes the lead on this issue. I have read the so-called five-point plan for the future of the steel industry which the hon. Gentleman just summarised. Four of its points are contrary to the treaty of Rome, and one is simply the establishment of a committee.

Debt Advice

Mr. Michael J. Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to increase spending on debt advice work.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): Much of this work

is done by local citizens advice bureaux, which are funded by generous Exchequer grant, of which the House will hear shortly this afternoon. The Department of Trade and Industry funds centrally the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and Citizens Advice Scotland to the tune of £11 million in the current year.

Mr. Martin: I understand that the Minister wished to encourage building societies and other financial institutions to put money into the fund that he set up, but that they have failed to do so. Is not it a cheek that those institutions, which send junk mail to almost every person who has a bank account encouraging them to get into more and more debt, are not prepared to finance the advice given to people who are in serious difficulties? Will the Minister use his good offices to ensure that building societies and banks do more in this respect?

Mr. Redwood: The private sector is already responding to the idea that it should help to finance schemes with local citizens advice bureaux, and the Government welcome that. I have explained that generous Government moneys are being paid through the local authority system to help with that work. Individual Members of Parliament can advise constituents who are in trouble that they should go immediately to the building society that gave them a mortgage and talk through their problem in good time, because often the building society can find a way of easing payments during a period of difficulty for the family. That is the best answer.

Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend is right that citizens advice bureaux do much work in dealing with this difficult matter. Is he aware that citizens advice bureaux in my constituency have perhaps more work than most in respect of credit and that they face difficulties in working within the budget that my hon. Friend outlined?

Mr. Redwood: It is for each local authority to decide the right level of funding for its citizens advice bureaux. Some local authorities are increasing the budget for CABs because they think that they do important work, but that is a matter for local determination. In several parts of the country, there are money advice support units funded by private sector initiative, led by companies ranging from Mercantile Credit through Barclaycard to a consortium working in Greater Manchester, and they, too, are helpful.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Does the Minister realise that more than 2·25 million households are in debt, that we have had a decade of debt and bankruptcies and that the Government have been encouraging spenders, not savers? When will the hon. Gentleman stop being the irresponsible lenders' lackey?

Mr. Redwood: That is complete nonsense, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. The Government have taken many measures to stimulate saving, with the welcome effect that the savings ratio has been increasing. As for serious debt problems, the hon. Gentleman may like to know that in the year to June 1990, the number of repossessions was only one third of 1 per cent. of the total stock of mortgages. That still means individual problems, and I have suggested to the House ways in which they can be resolved through the advice of debt advisers and Members of Parliament acting for their constituents.

World Trade

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his estimate of the United Kingdom's current share of world trade; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lilley: Latest estimates of the United Kingdom share of the value of the main manufacturing countries' exports of manufactures was 8·2 per cent. in 1989. The United Kingdom's share has been broadly unchanged since the early 1980s, following decades of decline.

Mr. Thurnham: Bearing in mind the importance of our invisible trade, which at 17 per cent. of the total is more than double that of our nearest competitors, may I ask my right hon. Friend to do his utmost to remove the barriers to invisible trade? I hope that he will have the Opposition's full support, because no doubt their prawn cocktails were largely paid for by the City's invisible trade.

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. I agree that we must welcome exports of invisibles just as we welcome exports of manufactures and other goods. We are taking action in the single market negotiations to remove barriers to invisible trade as well as visible trade and taking action in the GATT negotiations to extend the agreement to free trade in invisibles. We naturally regret the obstacles put in our way in both negotiations by some of our partners who are not as enthusiastic about free trade as we are.

Mr. Hoyle: Why is the Secretary of State so complacent? Does he realise that British companies are finding it more difficult to export and keep up their share of world trade? Does he realise that we are facing the worst recession since the 1980s, due to the Government's disastrous economic policies? Instead of being his usual spineless self, will he stand up for Britain and tell the Prime Minister and the Chancellor that they are wrong? If not, the rest of British industry will go down the plughole.

Mr. Lilley: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is extremely good at standing up for Britain and I endorse her stand. On the trade front, exports in the last quarter were up by 8 per cent. and imports were static compared with a year earlier. That is not a sign of the phenomenon that the hon. Gentleman tried to describe.

Mr. David Martin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the strength of our world trade relies heavily on the strength of our financial and exchange markets? What would be the effect of a single currency and a single banking system being adopted by the European Economic Community, and liable to be dominated by Germany?

Mr. Lilley: It is clear that it is not necessary, for success in international markets, to be part of a larger monetary zone. One need only think of Switzerland, for example, which is a very successful country even though it has a currency of limited circulation. Likewise, Canada, which has a closely integrated economy and is the biggest trading partner of the United States, feels no necessity to adopt the United States dollar as its currency.

Mr. Gordon Brown: Is the Minister so complacent as to be unaware of the problems faced by millions of people and by exporters in particular? What sense does it make to compound the evils of his high interest rate policy by

hitting industry twice over, with cuts in the Department of Trade and Industry budget, a 25 per cent., cut in research and development, a 40 per cent. cut in technology transfer, a 60 per cent. cut in regional enterprise grants and even cuts in export services? Instead of blaming everyone but themselves, why do not the Government accept that this is a recession labelled "Made in Downing street"?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman still lives in a dream world and believes that the success of industry is in direct proportion to the amount of Government money that is spent on it. He has only to look at the success of Japan to realise that that is not the case. The Ministry of International Trade and Industry, the Japanese equivalent of the DTI, spends a smaller proportion of Japanese income on supporting industry than we spend here, but it is very successful nevertheless. We should learn from Japan's successes, not from socialist policies of higher spending.

Mr. David Davis: Given the cant and nonsense that we have just heard, will my right hon. Friend tell the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) what has happened in export services since we introduced charging in that sector?

Mr. Lilley: I shall be delighted to do so, and it is most interesting. There was much suggestion that once we introduced charging, demand for the services would decrease, but it has, in fact, increased. By general consent, the services are much better now that they are more professionally provided and professionally used. There has been a great welcome for the improvement in the calibre of export services since they have been charged for. That is welcomed by industry and it will show up in higher export figures in due course.

Manufacturing Output

Mr. Cummings: To ask sthe Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to boost manufacturing output.

The Minister for Industry (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The most important spur to the significant output growth by British manufacturing industry since 1989 has come from the competitive pressures of more open markets. The Government continue to promote this objective with policies such as privatisation, deregulation, elimination of restrictive practices and international negotiations to reduce trade barriers through the GATT and in the European Community. In addition, my Department continues to operate a range of schemes to improve business performance under the enterprise initiative.

Mr. Cummings: Does the Minister realise that the United Kingdom is teetering on the brink of another recession? Does he further realise that the latest official figures for closures show that there has been an increase of 70 per cent. in winding-up petitions for businesses as compared with the third quarter of last year? In view of those alarming trends, what comfort can the Minister offer to industrialists and the unemployed in Easington?

Mr. Hogg: It is perfectly true that we have been witnessing a slowdown in economic activity. That is a necessary prelude to the reduction of inflationary pressures in the economy. But it must be seen in the proper


context which, to the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings), is this: unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 21·4 per cent. over the past 18 months, and by 10·8 per cent. over the past 12 months. As to the broader perspective since 1981, output in manufacturing industry has improved by 32 per cent., which contrasts with a fall under Labour between 1974 and 1979.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: One of the biggest manufacturers in Nottingham is Raleigh Industries, which manufactures probably the world's most famous marque in cycles. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agreed to have a look at the correspondence initiated with his predecessor on the impact of Chinese imports into this country and how they affect one of our most efficient manufacturing industries. Will my hon. and learned Friend the Minister undertake to have a serious look at that before it becomes a real problem?

Mr. Hogg: Very few people are more enthusiastic about bicycles than I am. Therefore, I shall ensure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, who is sitting beside me, pays the fullest regard to my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. James Lamond: How can we hope to expand manufacturing industry when firms like Hurley-Moate and Cobden Chadwick in Oldham are falling like ninepins? Is the Minister aware of the comments by Mr. Peter Maybury, a past president of Oldham chamber of commerce and trade, who referred to the Government's lunatic economic policies and mickey-mouse financial structures? When will the woman in Downing street realise that there is a recession on? Instead of complacently shouting and bawling at the Dispatch Box, should not the Minister take a trip to the north-east—as his father did, with his cloth cap on—and see the position of manufacturing industry? He can ask his friends in commerce and industry there how they feel about it.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt be the first person to greet me when I visit the north-east on Thursday. I go there nearly every six weeks, as the hon. Gentleman knows. As he clearly does not know the area, I can tell him that the economy of the north-east is extremely buoyant, the number of jobs is increasing rapidly and the people have very good morale. I suggest he goes there.

Mr. Grylls: Will my hon. and learned Friend make it clear that if there is increased output and productivity in industry, everyone should be happy to see higher wages because those higher wages will have been earned?

Mr. Hogg: Absolutely, but those basic lessons are not understood by the Labour party.

Manufactures

Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the balance of trade in manufactures with the European Community in (a) 1979 and (b) 1989.

Mr. Sainsbury: The United Kingdom trade deficit in manufactured goods with the European Community was £3·1 billion in 1979, and £14·4 billion in 1989.

Mr. Watson: As we have ended a decade under this Government with a deficit, as the Minister said, to the tune

of £14·5 billion, and with a manufacturing deficit in excess of £11 billion for the first nine months of this year, when do the Government intend to introduce industrial policies specifically related to training, research and development and export promotion? Those policies are essential to turn round the trade deficit which the Minister so blandly announced.

Mr. Sainsbury: It is surprising that Opposition Members so constantly try to denigrate the performance of British industry. With manufacturing output, manufacturing productivity and manufacturing exports at record levels in 1990, we should commend that achievement.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that Britain has been the country most favoured by non-EC countries for inward investment and that that has dramatically improved the chances of performing well in manufacturing during the 1990s? Does he also agree that we have a particular interest in the successful completion of the 1992 programme and in the application of all the directives by every member country?

Mr. Sainsbury: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that the environment that the Government have created for industry and enterprise is proving attractive not only to those seeking to invest in Europe from outside Europe, but to other Community countries.

Mr. Caborn: Has the Minister had time to read the second report on state support within the European Community, which was produced in July? If he has, will he comment on the fact that in member states, support per person in high-tech industries, in technology transfer and research and development—all within the rules—is 100 per cent. greater in France and 50 per cent. greater in Germany? Why have not the Government supported high-tech industries at least to try to have a level playing field, which major manufacturers have in the rest of Europe?

Mr. Sainsbury: I suppose that it is only to be expected that a Labour party spokesman always looks to the state to provide some form of what he calls support. The most effective support for British industry—any type of British industry—is the provision of a climate in which enterprise is rewarded and recognised.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister consider the Scottish economy and its contribution to export performance? How much consideration did his Department and the Treasury give to the high valuation of the currency in the exchange rate mechanism, which will certainly inhibit exports from places such as Scotland? Would he care to comment on the effect of our exchange rate in the ERM and the prospects for exports?

Mr. Sainsbury: If one examines the central rate against the deutschmark over the past decade, one sees that the entry rate for the ERM was very much along that central rate over an historical period. In addition, if one looks at purchasing power parities, one sees that most analyses show that the entry point was at the lower end of the range.

Mr. Oppenheim: Will my hon. Friend take note of the fact that the Dutch electronics company, Philips, which, over the years, has lobbied extremely successfully for more and more subsidies and protection from the European


Community, at the expense of other industries and consumers, now finds itself in the most tremendous mess? Should not that ring some alarm bells about the simplistic, interventionist prescriptions being proposed by Opposition Members? Is not it time that the Government stopped tamely acquiescing in the failed industrial strategies that have been propagated by the European Community over the past 30 years?

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend draws attention to an interesting point when he refers to Philips. That company's failure to pay sufficient attention to productivity has led to its problems. We should spend our time praising rather than denigrating British industry because productivity in British manufacturing industry is at record levels.

Engineering Output

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about the level of engineering output.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My Department regularly receives representations about many areas of industry, including the engineering sector.

Mr. Williams: Will the Minister comment on yesterday's report by the Confederation of British Industry, which predicts that manufacturing investment will fall by 6·7 per cent. this year compared with its level last year? Will he comment also on last month's report by the Engineering Employers Federation, which predicts that, over the next year, output in the engineering industry will fall by 5 per cent? What hope has the Minister to offer the engineering industry as it faces a recession?

Mr. Hogg: The advice that I would give is that those things have to be kept in perspective. One important piece of perspective is the growth of employment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency of Carmarthen. Over the past 18 months, employment there has risen by 24·3 per cent., and over the past 12 months it has risen by 15·5 per cent. I regard that as good news. Taking a broader perspective, in the quarter ended September 1990, output in the engineering industry increased by 3 per cent. compared with the previous 12 months.

Mr. Roger King: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that this country is now a favoured location for investment by Japanese, United States and many European companies that are involved in engineering and manufacturing processes? Does he further accept that, once they have been set up in this country, companies such as Nissan in the north-east produce goods of such high quality that they are capable of being re-exported back to countries such as Japan?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and it can be exemplified. Mechanical engineering output has increased by 15 per cent. since 1985, while it fell between 1974 and 1979; electrical and electronic engineering output has increased by 23 per cent. since 1985 while it fell between 1974 and 1979. The plain fact is that this country is the magnet for inward investment in Europe. We receive about 41 per cent. of American inward investment in Europe, and about one third of Japanese investment in Europe. We can be sure that that investment would not be coming in if the Labour party were in power.

Mr. Henderson: May I bring the Minister back to the report from the Engineering Employers Federation? Is the Minister concerned about its prediction that 80,000 jobs will be lost in the industry between mid-1990 and mid-1991? Do the Government accept any responsibility for that disastrous state of affairs? Will they now recognise that there is a need for an active industrial policy, as seen in the successful economies in Germany and Japan? Will the Minister announce a package of emergency measures in the Gracious Speech?

Mr. Hogg: We have an extremely effective industrial policy. That is why we saw output in manufacturing industry increase by 32 per cent. between 1981 and the present; it is why we have seen investment rise by 60 per cent. between 1981 and today; it is why we have seen exports in manufactured goods rise by 55 per cent. since 1981; it is why we have seen profitability at its highest-ever level; and it is why productivity has improved so much. We have an extremely good and successful industrial policy.

Germany

Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the outcome of his recent discussions in Berlin with his West German counterpart on the opportunities for British firms that wish to compete in the markets of the former German Democratic Republic.

Mr. Lilley: I met my German counterpart, Dr. Haussmann, with a team of business men on both sides. It was a very useful opportunity to learn about the economic opportunities in the former GDR, and to raise with the German side certain problems inhibiting investment. My Department is seeking to increase awareness in the United Kingdom of the business openings in eastern Germany and eastern Europe.

Mr. Knapman: Despite the best endeavours of my right hon. Friend—and, indeed, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary—I should like to know whether any British firms have been able to take stakes in the key industries in East Germany. Have they been able to invest in the banking industry, the insurance industry or the state airline? Will British Gas be able to take a stake in the gas industry, or is the real position in Germany the most protectionist since Chicago in the 1930s?

Mr. Lilley: I believe that one of the companies that accompanied me—Ready Mixed Concrete—has taken a major stake in a German concrete firm since that meeting. My hon. Friend is right, however: we were anxious to ensure that the Treuhandanstalt treated British applications fairly, especially in the sphere of utilities. In that sphere, we have the great advantage of privatised companies, which are able to bid, take part and contribute, and which can therefore bring competition—and a degree of comparative competition—on to the German scene. There was a great deal of interest among the German press and the German business men who were present when I was there, and who were hoping that that would happen. We shall do all in our power to ensure that British firms face a level playing field when they make applications.

Mr. Clelland: How can British manufacturing industry be expected to compete effectively in the former GDR against foreign competitors when 62 per cent. of our industrial work force are unskilled, compared with 38 per


cent. in Germany, 21 per cent. in Italy and 20 per cent. in France? Will the Minister have a word with his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and tell her that it is about time that, instead of continually criticising our European partners, she stopped carping and started learning?

Mr. Lilley: One thing that I learnt from the German business men present was their method of encouraging and financing training among the large number of people whom they take on after school. The trainees effectively financed themselves by accepting pay that was only 40 per cent. of the adult wage. I understand that that practice has largely been banished from British industry because of pressure from British trade unions, but I shall convey the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman when I next meet the unions.

Mr. Ashby: Has my right hon. Friend considered the position of Prescold, which has been taken over by the Germans, who now dominate the market? They closed down the company over here, and all the manufacturing is now taking place in Germany. That is one industry which has gone from this country to Germany.

Mr. Lilley: Happily, that is a rare occurrence. We are now the most favoured location for investment from West German companies and companies elsewhere in the EEC, as we are for countries outside the EEC, which are investing in the EEC to take advantage of the single market. We have received major investments from West German, Japanese, American, French and Italian companies because we provide an environment in which they can prosper. None of that investment would have come here had the Labour party been in power.

Mr. John D. Taylor: In connection with the proposed sale of Interflug, the East German airline, in which both Lufthansa and British Airways have declared an interest, has the Secretary of State made any representations to the German authorities to ensure fair play when considering British Airways' interest, or has he abandoned the matter to the Commission of the European Community?

Mr. Lilley: I made representations at the time and they were well received by the Minister, who recognised the strength of our point.

Small Firms

Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to assist small and medium-sized firms in developing new products and processes.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State plans to launch in early 1991 a new scheme to support small and medium-sized firms to develop new products and processes. The scheme will be called SPUR.

Mr. Nicholson: Despite the present difficulties, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that small and medium-sized firms in the south-west are well placed to take advantage of the single European market? Will he state the proposed level of funding for this splendid new initiative and will he continue to build on it with further initiatives to help innovation?

Mr. Hogg: We have a variety of initiatives in place, most notably SMART—the small firms merit award for

research and technology—the consultancy initiative and REG—regional enterprise grant. Those are all familiar terms to some hon. Members but not, it seems, to the Labour party. Investment will be about £30 million over three years.

Mr. John Evans: Will the Minister acknowledge that the finest assistance that could be given to small and medium-sized firms in Britain, and St. Helens in particular, would be a substantial fall in the appalling level of interest rates, which is currently crippling them?

Mr. Hogg: As a matter of fact, the best assistance by far is a profitable industry. The House will like to know that profitability in British industry has increased substantially in the past decade. It is up 1·75 times since 1979, up 2·5 times since 1980 and up 3·5 times since 1981. The House will also like to know that between 1974 and 1979 profitability increased not at all.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Following on from that reply, does my hon. and learned Friend remember that during Labour's last period of Government its response to the lack of output from small companies was to increase employers' national insurance contributions by imposing a national insurance surcharge? Does he recall that during the 1980s we removed it progressively and output increased? Has he made any representations to the Treasury about reducing the current high level of employers' national insurance contributions of 11·5 per cent. to perhaps 5 or 6 per cent., which it was in those days?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend referred to an important point. Under the Labour Government of 1974–79, manufacturing output actually fell. If the House would like to have the figures, they are these. In 1974, output was £109·1 billion. In 1975, it was £106 billion. To be more precise, production of cars between 1974 and 1979 fell by about one third, from just over 1·5 million to just over 1 million. So, Mr. Speaker, you can well understand why we regard the protestations of the Labour party that it is a friend of manufacturing industry as simply absurd.

Dr. Moonie: I was wondering where the continentals got the term "thick bricks" from. How does the Minister propose to aid technology transfer by cutting the budget by 40 per cent?

Mr. Hogg: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has not studied the matter carefully. The SPUR scheme, which is the most interest—

Ms. Mowlam: What is it?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) wants to know about the SPUR scheme. Well, I shall let her know about it. It has three elements. The first is to assist firms to pay for consultants, to help with the introduction of advanced manufacturing systems. The second is to assist small firms with product developments that have a novel, technological edge to them. The third is to assist with the provision of technological expertise to deal with short-term problems. I should expect ringing applause from the Opposition, but I know that I shall not get it.

Manufacturing Productivity

Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the growth of manufacturing productivity in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) other G7 countries during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.

Mr. Lilley: In the 1960s Britain had the slowest rate of growth in manufacturing productivity of any of the seven major industrial countries. In the 1970s we again had the slowest rate of growth in manufacturing productivity of any of those countries. In the 1980s we had the fastest rate of growth in manufacturing productivity of any of those countries.

Dr. Clark: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating British manufacturing industry on its remarkable achievement? Does he agree that increasing productivity leads to lower unit costs, which lead to increased sales, profits and investment, which is the best way to expand our manufacturing base?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We should congratulate British industry because its manufacturing productivity has increased even faster than that of Japan. Scottish Labour Members make comments about the performance of industry, but we should note that Scottish manufacturing productivity has grown even faster than that of the rest of the United Kingdom. Scotland has outstripped even Japan and I pay tribute to Scottish industry for that. It never receives a word of praise from Scottish Labour Members.

Mr. Eastham: If industrial production was so bad in the 1960s and 1970s and is supposed to be so good now, why do we have the worst balance of payments deficit in our industrial record, of £20 billion?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman should realise that a balance of payments deficit normally reflects an excess of demand that is growing even faster than rapid output. If a country spends £520 billion and produces £500 billion worth of output, it has a £20 billion deficit. That reflects not competitiveness, but excess demand. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has slowed the rate of growth in demand. The deficit is already diminishing and will continue to do so.

Green Policies

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action the Government have taken to encourage green policies in industry.

Mr. Redwood: In May 1989 my Department launched an environmental programme. It set up an environmental helpline, which has already handled 6,000 queries. In April 1990 an environment unit was set up within the Department and in October 1990 I had the pleasure of launching two schemes—one jointly with the Department of the Environment, the environmental technology innovation scheme, to encourage research in green technology, and the DTI's environmental management options scheme, to spread best practice in green matters. They are positive steps forward and represent a major commitment to encourage British industry to pursue green policies.

Mr. Arnold: May I welcome the establishment of the environment unit and the other measures that my hon. Friend mentioned? What financial support are the Government giving to companies, such as Scotts in my constituency, with their environmental programmes?

Mr. Redwood: The funding for the various schemes amounts to £20 million over three years. We expect British industry to fund most research and development into new products and to promote its work to improve standards on pollution control. We believe in the "polluter pays" principle and that the main role of the Government is to set standards, which the House has been doing through the environmental protection measures.

Ms. Quin: Do not we have much catching up to do in this particular area? Will the Minister confirm that West Germany, for example, spends three times what we spend on environmentally related research and development?

Mr. Redwood: I cannot confirm that particular figure and I do not know where the hon. Lady got it. The British experience is not at all bad by international comparison. The standards that we are setting will be good ones, which many parts of British industry can already meet. There a re many problems throughout the continent of Europe and the further east, the more difficult the problems.

Sir Hal Miller: Drawing a veil over the environmental consequences of socialist Governments in eastern Europe, is my hon. Friend aware that engineering firms in the west midlands accept the thrust of Government policy to improve the environment, but are concerned about the capital costs of some of the standards under discussion in the technical committees? What contribution is my hon. Friend's Department making to the consideration of those technical standards, taking into account best available technology not entailing excessive cost? Would it be possible to extend assistance provided by the Industry Acts to meet environmental objectives?

Mr. Redwood: My Department is active in discussions with other Departments in Whitehall on the green initiative, for the reasons that my hon. Friend has described, if not for other reasons. We want sensible standards that industry can meet. The purpose of the exercise is not to drive industry out of business, but to provide a stimulus for better practice and better products.
It is also true that green policies do not always mean higher costs and increased difficulty for business. Often such policies mean controlling waste in a business, better control over stocks, a greater effort to be first right, first time and better practice within business. Such policies can cut costs rather than increase them. Part of my Department's message to business is that green business is good business and that business might find that there are offsetting cost advantages in pursuing such policies, which should be taken into account when running through the capital appraisals.

Iraq

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the number of firms affected by the withdrawal of contracts from Iraq.

Mr. Sainsbury: We do not have a complete count of United Kingdom firms affected. The Department of Trade and Industry, the Bank of England and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have dealt with a large volume of inquiries since the beginning of the crisis. The Export Credits Guarantee Department is in contact with most of the firms that insured their contracts and it will be meeting established claims.

Mr. Campbell: Is not a year a long time? If I had asked this question a year ago, Ministers would have been falling over backwards to tell us about all the wonderful contracts that we have with Iraq. Those contracts were operating at a time when Iraq was fighting a war against Iran, so what has changed?

Mr. Sainsbury: If the Department and the ECGD had not provided the normal range of export help to what was a very good market—a market for civilian equipment and civilian exports—we should have been open to criticism. Since 1983, £2·7 billion of new exports have been secured for the United Kingdom in that market. That must have meant a lot of jobs.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the only way in which we shall have peace in the middle east is to defeat Saddam Hussein? Those who complain about the costs of losing a few contracts fail to recognise the high stakes for which we are playing. They are the sort of people who would have appeased Hitler in the 1930s. The price of appeasement then was war and the price of appeasement today would also be war.

Mr. Sainsbury: I agree that the whole House, or nearly the whole House, is united in the determination to see that Saddam Hussein gains nothing from his invasion of Kuwait and that his withdrawal from it is total and unconditional.

Mr. Flannery: Is not it a fact that a short time ago we were exporting what were called oil pipes to Iraq, and the Government did not seem to know that we were actually exporting long-distance gun barrels? Will the Minister examine his conscience about that, instead of talking so glibly?

Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman is well aware, I hope, that that matter is sub judice.

Research and Development

Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his Department's and Her Majesty's Government's research and development expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product; and what comparable information he has in respect of Japan.

Mr. Lilley: Total Government-funded research and development as a percentage of gross domestic product was 1.0 per cent. in 1988. This was twice the corresponding figure for Japan.

Mr. Moss: As my right hon. Friend is well aware, the Cambridge phenomenon has had important side-effects elsewhere in East Anglia and I hope that those effects will increase in my constituency in the future. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he is encouraging industry to

collaborate with university and polytechnic science and technology departments to establish science parks and other developments?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The success of science-based industries around Cambridge is due to the close collaboration between industry and the university science base there. We are anxious to encourage that throughout the country and so have encouraged the establishment of science parks around universities—there are now 39 of them and another 19 are planned. I am anxious that we should consider building more around polytechnics and Government research establishments so that they can benefit from similar effects.

Mr. Cousins: Does the Secretary of State accept that the LINK scheme to promote links between industry and higher education, which his Department launched, is in a state of collapse because of the ridiculous red tape and restrictions surrounding the rules of that scheme? That is evidenced by the withdrawal from LINK of Celltech, an important new British high technology company, only this week.

Mr. Lilley: No, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise. We are introducing a new scheme in which it will be much easier for small companies to participate without having to go to the length of collaborating with a range of other companies. An increasing number of applications and programmes are going ahead under the LINK scheme. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that and be pleased to know that he was mistaken.

Mr. Conway: Has industry's funding of research and development decreased or increased during the Government's term of office?

Mr. Lilley: Research and development by private industry, which is most important and valuable, has increased substantially since industry's profitability increased. Over the past five years research and development by business went up by 50 per cent. We have increasingly focused Government support on getting better co-operation between universities and the science base and industry.

Information Technology

Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the latest estimate of the balance of trade in information technology.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: According to the latest estimates, the United Kingdom had a deficit of £685 million in the manufactured products of the electronics and information technology sector in the first quarter of 1990. Those figures are for hardware only. There are no separate figures for trade in software.

Mr. Jones: Is not that a deplorable gap in a valuable world market? Should not we encourage our own product base in that important sphere? When will we invest in the research and development necessary to do that?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has not reflected on those matters. All major OECD countries, with the exception of Japan, have a deficit in information technology. The United Kingdom has a substantial surplus of £900 million in its trade with the rest of the


Community, including France, Germany and Italy. I am sure that the hon Gentleman will be pleased to know that output in electronic and information technology industries in the United Kingdom has increased by 37 per cent. since 1985. Perhaps he should do a little more homework before he asks a question.

Sir Ian Lloyd: What view does my hon. and learned Friend take about the fact that we are now almost completely dependent on Japan for the chemicals used in the manufacture of semiconductors?

Mr. Hogg: Whenever possible, we welcome inward investment in those sectors. I am glad that generally throughout the IT industry there have been substantial improvements in our domestic capacity. I welcome that and attribute it, at least partly, to Government policy.

Mr. Mullin: What will be the effect on our trade in information technology of our entry into the ERM at the ludicrously inflated rate of DM2·95? How long will it be before we have to devalue?

Mr. Hogg: I am sorry for the hon. Gentleman because he is normally a bright fellow who does his homework, but he has not done so today. At present our surplus with West Germany is £470 million, our surplus with France is £557 million and our surplus with Italy is £212 million. I expect that happy trend to continue.

Germany

Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's trade with Germany.

Mr. Sainsbury: Germany is the United Kingdom's second largest export market. Our visible exports in the first three quarters of this year increased by 19 per cent. to £9·4 billion, compared with the first nine months of 1989. Germany is the United Kingdom's largest supplier and our visible imports increased by 3·4 per cent. in the same period, reaching £15·3 billion.

Mr. Taylor: As last year's figures show that for every pound of goods we sent to Germany, Germany sent us back more than £2 worth, and as the deficit was more than double our deficit with Japan, does not that seem to show either a considerable amount of non-tariff discrimination or that the exchange rate of DM2·95 is wholly artificial? Will the Minister examine that problem and see what can be done about our worst trading partner, not our best?

Mr. Sainsbury: There are clearly considerable opportunities for British companies to increase their exports to Germany. It is our second largest export market and there has been good growth in it. I hesitate to say this to my hon. Friend, but our opportunities to export to that market would be reduced—there would be more obstacles to our trade—were we not both members of the European Community.

Japanese Cars

Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had in Europe about import ceilings for Japanese cars after 1992.

Mr. Lilley: I attended an informal meeting of Community Trade Ministers and the Commission in September, which discussed that matter. The Commission is proposing a transitional period of continuing restrictions lasting until the late 1990s. The United Kingdom continues to press for early liberalisation. We remain adamant that cars made in the EC by Japanese-owned companies must continue to be allowed unlimited free circulation throughout the Community. I believe that that has now been accepted by other member states and the Commission.

Mr. Mitchell: Has not the Minister got himself and the nation into a trap, because he has not been strong enough or tough enough to get full agreement to the exclusion of Japanese cars made in this country from the Japanese quotas? He is driven, as a result, to want an increase in the Japanese quota; rumour has it that he has been urging an increase from 11 per cent. to 29 per cent. If so, that would decimate jobs in the British motor industry. Why does not he beef himself up to get those cars included as British?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The voluntary restraint agreement 11 per cent. restriction is no longer being fully met simply because Japanese cars are now being produced domestically, so there is less need to import them than in the past. There is therefore no question of imports of Japanese cars being expected to rise to the figure that the hon. Gentleman stated. He is correct, however, to say that there is still opposition from the Italians and to a lesser extent from the French to reaching an agreement on that. He can always apply his own sanctions and abandon his Fiat motor car if he wants.

Local Government Finance

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the local authority financial settlement for England for 1991–92. I apologise for its necessary length.
I announced the Government's broad proposals in July, including an increase of nearly 13 per cent. in the amount of grant and business rates to be paid to local authorities in 1991–92. I have today sent the local authority associations a consultation paper setting out the proposed distribution between authorities. Copies have been sent to authorities, and are also in the Vote Office and Library.
I confirm that we propose to give English local authorities £26·050 billion of aggregate external finance—that is the total of certain specific and special grants, payments from the business rate pool, and revenue support grant.
We have already announced that next year the safety net will be abolished. It will be replaced by an area protection grant which will be paid for by the Exchequer. Four hundred and eighty-five million pounds will be used for this purpose.
Another component of aggregate external finance is the money paid to local authorities from the business rate pool. We propose that the business rate next year should be 38·6 p in the pound, which is an increase in line with the annual increase in the retail prices index to September of 10·9 per cent. The total burden on business will therefore remain broadly the same as it was in 1989–90, allowing for inflation. This is despite the substantial growth in local authority spending since then, and shows the benefit of the uniform business rate for business. Under the previous system, businesses would have paid at least £1 billion more in rates this year. It should be recalled that, between 1979–80 and 1989–90, locally set rate poundages rose by 37·4 per cent. more than inflation—an average of 3·2 per cent. a year on a compound basis.
The consultation paper sets out my forecast of the amount that will be available from the business rate pool to support local authority spending in 1991–92. In making this estimate, known as the distributable amount, I have taken account of the business rates local authorities are expected to collect in 1991–92. I have also taken into account the fact that local authorities are collecting more rates in 1990–91 than will be paid out from the pool during this year, and the distributable amount reflects this as the statute requires. This arrangement means that, taking one year with another, all the income raised from business ratepayers will be passed to local authorities to support their spending.
I propose that revenue support grant will top up the income from the business rate pool and other grants to bring the total to £26·05 billion. The amounts are £13·6 billion of grants, and £12.4 billion from the pool. In addition, the Government will be providing support through the transitional relief and community charge benefit arrangements.
As I said in July, the Government believe that it would be appropriate for local authorities to spend £39 billion next year in providing services. This figure takes account of what local authorities are spending now, the new pressures they face, the scope for economies and savings,

and what the country can afford. From this figure is derived a standard spending assessment, or SSA, for each authority.
In January, I invited authorities to put forward any fresh evidence about the way that SSAs should be calculated. We have received many representations suggesting changes that might be made. We have considered those representations most carefully. Many of the suggestions were familiar from last year, and there was no consensus on what changes, if any, should be made. I remain persuaded that the decisions we made last year were broadly correct. I also believe that it is helpful to maintain stability, so that charge payers can make comparisons between what they are asked to pay from one year to another. I have therefore decided that we should retain the broad principles that we adopted last year after a great deal of research. But I do propose some changes and improvements. Details may be found in the consultation paper, but I shall describe three of them.
First, I propose to reduce somewhat the weighting applied to the additional educational needs index used in the assessments for education. I have looked again at the impact of this factor on the cost of providing education. In the case of the primary, secondary and post-16 elements, the weight is fair, and I am proposing no changes. In the case of the under-fives and other education elements, however, I have decided to adjust the weight from 70 to 50 per cent.
Secondly, I propose to double the significance given to the number of tourists in calculating the SSA component for other services. This change will help in particular those areas which receive a substantial number of overnight visitors. Thirdly, I propose to make allowance for supernumerary posts in the police force designated for special protection duties. I know that these changes will be welcomed by a number of hon. Members.
On average, SSAs will increase by 19·4 per cent. over SSAs for 1990–91. There will be variations around that average reflecting the changes that I have announced, and the changes between years in factors such as the numbers on school rolls and the population in each authority.
The settlement proposals give local authorities scope to increase their spending by 7 per cent. in aggregate above this year's budgets. Taxpayers and business ratepayers together will be providing 12·8 per cent more support than this year. The community charge for standard spending will be £380. If authorities are extravagant, or if they are inefficient in collecting community charges, they may have to set charges at levels higher than that, but efficient authorities which spend within their SSAs will be able to set charges significantly lower than the community charge for standard spending. Authorities receiving help for the area protection grant should also have lower charges. Authorities that paid into the safety net this year should ensure that the community charge payers receive the full benefit of the abolition of those payments.
Many people will receive help to meet their charges through community charge benefits and from the transitional relief scheme. This year, the average amount actually paid by charge payers net of reliefs and benefits will be £286 against an average charge of £357, and, given the improvements in the transitional relief scheme and the availability of benefits, it should be little higher next year. One in four charge payers will receive benefits, and up to 11 million people will receive help from the more generous transitional relief scheme operating in 1991–92. Each


couple receiving transitional relief now will receive £52 more relief next year, rather than losing £26 as they would have done without the improvements that I announced in July.
It is important that authorities should make every effort to collect charges. The best authorities have already collected charges from 97 per cent. of people, and across the country nearly 90 per cent. of people have begun paying. We have given authorities the powers that they need to ensure payment. Authorities—both officers and councillors—have a duty to ensure that revenue is collected. If they fail, the majority who do pay will have to pay higher charges. Those who are tempted not to pay are merely expecting other people to pay their bills for them. That is totally unacceptable.
In the first year of the new system, some local authorities used the transition from rates to the community charge as a smokescreen to hide their increases in spending. Spending rose by 13·5 per cent. It went up by a quarter in only two years. I have made it clear that authorities must be prepared to play their part in ensuring that the nearly £3 billion extra we have made available in 1991–92 is passed on to charge payers. I have also made it clear that I am prepared to make full use of my powers to cap authorities' budgets if necessary. This year, I hope that, as I am specifying now the criteria that I have in mind for capping, councils will take the appropriate action to control their spending. Many authorities have specifically asked that I should make an early announcement.
As I told the House in July, I have power to cap in two ways. I can cap a council's excessive budget, or cap excessive increases from one year to the next. In my judgment it is reasonable to allow smaller increases for those authorities whose budgets are well above their SSAs.
My intended criteria are, therefore, that any increase of more than 9 per cent. over the previous year's budget will be considered an excessive increase if it gives rise to a budget over the authority's SSA; any increase of more than 7 per cent. will be considered excessive if it gives rise to a budget over 5 per cent. above the SSA; and any increase of more than 5 per cent. will be considered excessive if it gives rise to a budget over 10 per cent. above the SSA. In addition, I intend that any budget more than 12·5 per cent. above the SSA will be considered excessive.
This year I specified that no authority would be capped if it budgeted only a small amount above the measure of excessiveness I used, but authorities should not assume that I will again adopt a de minimis proviso, or if I do that it will be at the same level as for 1990–91. Authorities spending less than £15 million are exempt from capping. I do not propose to increase that threshold, but I intend to make special provision for the particular circumstances of the inner London boroughs which still bear the cost of inherited overspending by the Inner London education authority, and also for the City of London, where there are different considerations.
These criteria are necessarily provisional. When I come to make my decisions on capping, I will of course take into account all appropriate considerations. I might reach different conclusions. I have placed a paper in the Library and Vote Office setting out my intentions in detail and have sent a copy to local authorities.
The criteria that I have announced today are demanding. Local authorities cannot be exempt from the restraint that is needed—from public and private sectors alike—to achieve the overriding objective of getting

inflation down. But I am satisfied that efficient, well-managed authorities can provide effective services within the proposed criteria. Authorities should look very carefully at how they can eliminate any wasteful expenditure and streamline their administration.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I are determined to make sure that charge payers benefit in full from any budget reductions arising from charge capping. Following the recent judgments in the Lambeth case, we therefore propose to legislate as soon as possible to secure that objective.
In my statement on 19 July I also announced a number of proposals to improve some of the detailed workings of the new system, to make it simpler and to remove anomalies. We have now completed consultations with local authorities and other interested organisations on these matters. Our conclusions, which I believe will be widely welcomed, have been sent today to local authorities and are also in the Vote Office and Library. We have announced reductions from next year in the standard community charge that can be levied on the owners of unoccupied property in exceptional cases. Among those who benefit will be people who have houses with an empty granny flat; people who have an empty flat over a shop which is difficult to let; people who have homes which are empty because they have gone to care for, or be cared by, someone else; students who pay a reduced personal charge but can face a double charge if they own a home elsewhere; farm owners who have empty cottages which are subject to planning restrictions; people who are having difficulty selling their houses; and people who have suffered from a mortgage repossession.
Finally—and this represents a more generous arrangement than the one I proposed on 19 July—I have decided that all those people such as clergymen, service men and some teachers who occupy a job-related property but who also own a home elsewhere will be subject to a multiplier of only one half of the personal community charge.
We intend to introduce a simplified community charge bill to improve accountability, more generous transitional arrangements for the rating of small businesses where the owner lives over the shop, and a number of other useful administrative improvements. We shall be bringing forward regulations to bring all these changes into effect for the start of 1991–92. We have not yet completed consideration of all the responses to the consultation on the treatment of bed-and-breakfast accommodation, but I expect to be able to make an announcement on that very soon.
My proposals for next year's settlement envisage a realistic increase in local authority spending, backed by an increase in external support which is fair by any standard. We have made a number of improvements in the method of distributing grant, while mantaining stability. Standard spending assessments are increasing by 19·4 per cent. on average, so most authorities should be able to budget at or below their SSAs. And no area will contribute to the safety net. Charges therefore need not be much higher than about £380 anywhere, and should be lower where authorities are efficient or where there is help from the area protection grant. I shall use my charge-capping powers to make sure that the extra resources from national taxation and businesses go to benefit charge payers rather than fuelling excessive spending. Specifically for this year, I have given authorities advance warning of my intended criteria.
The Government are ensuring that local authorities have the resources which they need. This is a substantial settlement, which must necessarily have its impact on public expenditure settlements elsewhere. It is now for local authorities to respond by setting reasonable budgets and reasonable community charges. Charge payers want, and have a right to expect, good services at a price they can afford.

Mr. Bryan Gould: The Secretary of State's statement shows that he is still unable to get off the poll-tax treadmill, and that in attempting to do so he simply succeeded in making matters worse. He has revealed himself as the most centralising Secretary of State and the most damaging to local government of modern times.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that his total spending assessment was unrealistic when he announced it in July and that it is even more unrealistic now? Why has he not reflected the changes that have occurred since July, all of which have been adverse to the financing of local government? Why, for example, has he not taken account of the fact that inflation is running at 10·9 per cent. and not 7 per cent., on which he based himself? If he is ready to tax businesses to the full extent of the current inflation rate, why will he not recognise that local authorities, too, face that same inflation rate? Why not take account of the increased commitments, many of them of recent origin, such as those imposed only this week by the Environmental Protection Bill? Why not take account of the increased commitments on care in the community and teachers' pay which have materialised since July? Why not recognise that collection rates are much lower than expected in many cases, not because of the fault of local authorities, but, as the Audit Commission will say tomorrow, because of the structure of this inefficient tax?
On the business rate, which has already caused such distress to small businesses in particular, not least in the Secretary of State's constituency, will he confirm that by imposing the full inflation rate of 10·9 per cent. the take for the business rate will increase by no less than 18·4 per cent., compared with an increase in central Government grant of only 1·4 per cent? The business rate will increase from £10·4 billion to £12·4 billion. In other words, business will contribute £2 billion of the extra money that the Secretary of State boasted he had claimed from the Treasury in July. The truth is that on that occasion, as on others, the Secretary of State was turned over by the Treasury, and business will pick up the bill. Will he confirm that, for the forthcoming year, businesses will pay £400 million more than is paid to local government, and that that amount will go straight into Treasury coffers?
Does the Secretary of State accept that, by retaining the broad principles of calculating SSAs, he is acknowledging that his soft words at the beginning of the year to the effect that the calculation was based on an unsatisfactory premise was no more than a piece of flannel designed, as is so much else to do with the poll tax, to avert short-term criticism? Will he also accept that the formula that he has adopted for taking account of the number of tourists is no more than an Eastbourne and Westminster benefit measure—a protection racket which will reduce poll tax bills by £12 per head in Westminster alone?
On the likely size of poll tax bills, why should we pay any more attention to the Secretary of State's figure of

£380 than we did when he assured us that this year's bill would average just £278? Why, this year, has he not published a list of indicative poll tax levels for each authority? Dare he not do so?
Do not the draconian rules that the Secretary of State has announced on capping mean that a local authority that increases its budget by less than the rate of inflation—that is, it makes cuts in real terms—could still find itself capped on the basis of an SSA which the Secretary of State concedes is far from being precise? When will the provisional criteria that he has announced become firm? In other words, when will local authorities know exactly where they are? Do not the new rules and the new powers that he intends to take in the wake of the Lambeth judgment mean that every poll tax bill will, in effect, be the Secretary of State's bill? The Government's fingerprints will appear on every poll tax bill that arrives through the letter box next spring.
Why has the Secretary of State left the £15 million threshold as it is without uprating it for inflation, as he has for the business rate? Is not this merely a device to exclude Tory councils from the capping net and to save the Secretary of State from the embarrassment of having to cap those Tory councils? What about Tandridge, spending 30·5 per cent. above its SSA? What about Torbay, spending 84·7 per cent. above its SSA? What about Brentwood, spending 108·5 per cent. above its SSA? Why are they not caught by the capping provisions?
Is not it the truth that this is still a Government and a Secretary of State up to their old tricks, trying to shift the blame for the poll tax from where it belongs, with them, on to those who are already suffering as victims—local authorities, local government independence and those millions of people who must pay the bills and suffer the cuts that this wicked tax has made inevitable?

Mr. Patten: In that welter of hyperbole, I detected two main strands of argument. First, the hon. Gentleman asked me a series of questions about the business rate. I make it clear once again that, thanks to the change to the UBR, business rate payers will pay £1 billion less than they would be paying if we had stuck to the previous system. Manufacturing industry, in which the hon. Gentleman and others affect to have some interest, will as a result of our changes see a real terms fall outside inner London. This year, small shops will pay £10 million less in aggregate in real terms—2 per cent. less—[Interruption.] A revaluation was supported by the Labour party and by the Liberal party. It is a revaluation which, quite properly, takes account of what is happening in different parts of the country because of the economic growth of the past decade.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the balance between the contribution from the taxpayer and that from the business rate payer. If he believes that we should cut the contribution from the business rate pool, is he saying that we should either cut provision for local authorities or make the taxpayer pay more? That is the simple alternative. As ever with the Opposition, the question is, where is the beef? They tell us that they want more services and smaller bills for ratepayers and community charge payers. Where will the money come from? They resolutely refuse to answer that question.
The hon. Gentleman, in what I guess I must argue was an uncharacteristic slip, referred to the increase in grant as about 1 per cent. Actually, the increase in grant is about 7·65 per cent.—

Mr. Gould: indicated dissent.

Mr. Patten: Yes, it is, and that is not including the amount that will go to community charge payers through transitional relief. It does not include the amount that will go to community charge payers through community charge benefit. The hon. Gentleman should look more carefully at those figures.
In another strand of his argument, the hon. Gentleman said that a 19·4 per cent. increase in total standard spending was unrealistic. Where is the shadow Chancellor? It is preposterous to say that a 19·4 per cent. increase is unrealistic. It is a realistic judgment. It takes account of what we think local authorities should reasonably spend next year and it feeds through to SSAs across the country. I do not think that the Opposition will grumble when they see the increases in the SSAs in their authorities.
The hon. Gentleman referred to capping. I shall comment only briefly because I dare say that this will not be our last opportunity to discuss capping. Over the past year, I have been pressed again and again by local authorities to announce well in advance my criteria for capping. Some Labour local authority leaders told me, "If only you had told us the criteria, we should not have had to be capped." I have done them a favour. Now, any authority that is capped will have volunteered for it because we have set out fair and realistic criteria that take account of the relationship between what local authorities spend and what they can reasonably spend. I hope that, now that we have set out those criteria well in advance, local authorities will be able to budget sensibly in the interests of their community charge payers.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the SSA methodology. He accused us of trying to help Conservative authorities through the changes that we have made in respect of tourism. I ought to tell him that among the authorities that will be helped are Camden and Bradford and that, thanks to vigorous representations from two of my hon. Friends, Blackpool and the surrounding areas will also be helped, so the hon. Gentleman is well off the mark.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to collection rates. I am pleased—and I am sure that he must be—that the Audit Commission figures which will be contained in a press release today and in an extensive document to be published tomorrow make it abundantly plain that since August there has been an increase of 30 per cent.—about one third—in the number of those paying. Those figures confirm what other figures have shown: the payment rate is almost 90 per cent. generally and it is 92 per cent. in district council areas. I hope that we can now look to the Opposition Front Bench and to all Opposition Members to denounce those who would be free riders and especially to denounce those Members of Parliament who want their constituents to pay higher community charges so that they can get off scot free.
The hon. Gentleman said that, as a result of the proposals put before the House this afternoon—I note that he said nothing about the announcements later in my speech about the standard community charge, although I shall leave that on one side—community charge bills next spring would have my fingerprints on them. I can only say

that I hope that more and more local authority community charge bills will have Conservative fingerprints on them because we know from Trafford, Southend, Hillingdon, Ealing and elsewhere that Conservative-controlled local authorities provide better services at a lower charge. That is true today and it will be increasingly true in the future.

Mr. Robin Squire: My right hon. Friend's statement contained many welcome elements. In particular, I would highlight the reduction in the weighting on the educational special needs element of the education budget, which was pressed on him by many local authorities throughout the country. I am pleased that he has responded. Will my right hon. Friend continue to treat with contempt all criticisms of alleged inefficiency and inadequacy of Government budgeting in that sector until and unless the Opposition are prepared to categorise how much and who will pay?

Mr. Patten: On additional educational needs, the result will be a reduction in the percentage from about 24 to 22½ per cent.

Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Disgraceful.

Mr. Patten: The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) knows that the percentage before SSAs was 12 per cent., so she cannot accuse us of savaging that element in the grant distribution formula. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) is right in saying that we received a large number of representations on the subject, from a large number of local authorities among other bodies. We were right to make the adjustment that we have announced today.
With regard to efficiency and other matters in local authorities, I notice that the Labour party's latest proposal for replacing the community charge, were Labour—unlikely as it may be—to have an opportunity to do that, would involve the reintroduction of
the most unjust of all taxes which takes most from those who can afford least.
As Opposition Members will know, those remarks were made by the Leader of the Opposition.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It would help the Chair greatly today if hon. Members asked one question rather than a series of questions. If that happens, I hope that I shall be able to call most of the hon. Members who wish to participate in the debate.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: While I welcome certain parts of the statement, especially the reference to tourism which I believe stems not from Eastbourne, but from pressure from many tourist areas, does the Secretary of State agree that his statement will be another nail in the coffin of local government finance which he has fully restricted? Will he also comment on the fact that the authorities that will face difficulties will have to make cuts in social services, education buildings and in amenities which are already suffering? Will he also—

Mr. Speaker: Order. In fairness, I asked for one question. I know that the hon. Gentleman leads for his party on this matter, but three questions is overdoing it.

Mr. Fearn: Small businesses all over the country are being affected. They are going to be affected to the tune of 15 to 20 per cent. and not 10·9 per cent.

Mr. Patten: With regard to small businesses, as the hon. Gentleman knows, about 45 per cent. of businesses will be out of transition by next year. About 20 per cent. of businesses, a lot of which are small manufacturing businesses, will actually see falls in cash terms in their business rates. That is three times the proportion of businesses that will see increases at the top end of the range.

Mr. Fearn: indicated dissent.

Mr. Patten: If the hon. Gentleman disagrees, he can table parliamentary questions about that. However, those figures have emerged from the calculations made by the valuers.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to learn that the educational element in the SSAs will be increasing by just over 16 per cent. and that should be enough to continue to provide the quality education that we all want to see.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's reference to nails in coffins—and at this stage I would not wish to go back to dead birds—we are under an obligation, having made a settlement as substantial as this for local authorities, to do all we can to ensure that that money helps to continue to improve services and to abate increases in the community charge. It would be monstrous if that money saw another splurge in local authority spending. I for one am not going to allow that to happen.

Miss Emma Nicholson: I thank my right hon. Friend most warmly for his commitment to help the rural areas and the environment by concentrating on tourism. The next time he examines the SSAs, will he see whether there is any way in which he could take low administrative costs into account, particularly when he is considering charge capping because so many local authorities, generally Labour, have very high administrative charges which may not be readily apparent and Conservative counties like Devon, which my right hon. Friend kindly visited last week, have very low administrative charges? The good guys should be rewarded and the bad guys' knuckles rapped.

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend has raised a relevant matter. The list published the other day by the Department of Education and Science showing the administrative costs of local education authorities not surprisingly reveals that the highest costs are the responsibility of Labour-controlled local authorities. That should be of considerable interest to parents and community charge payers. We all want to see more money concentrated on those who sit behind desks in schools instead of on those who sit behind desks in offices.
On the overall matter of SSAs, I enjoyed my discussions in Devon the other week with a number of county councillors and county officers. I am sure that my hon. Friend will notice with pleasure the increase in the SSAs affecting local authorities in her constituency.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Having had three months in which to think about the announcement that he made in July, will the Secretary of State now admit that, if the Government had a single ounce of fairness in dealing with

the failure of the poll tax to take account of ability to pay, the £3 billion that he announced in July would have been far better used in giving better poll tax rebates? That would have helped the poorer sections of the community, many of whom cannot afford to pay the poll tax now.

Mr. Patten: If I were to follow the advice of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends, I would simply say no, but I shall be a little more extensive. First, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the huge increase in the SSA affecting his own constituency. Secondly, I am sure that he is extremely pleased that the community charge benefit is a great deal more generous than the benefit available for domestic ratepayers and that we have doubled assistance going through transitional relief principally to those living in low rateable value accommodation.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Does my right hon. Friend now have in place a mechanism for estimating accurately the cost of new duties placed by Departments of central Government on local government? It is absolutely clear this year that it is not yet in place.

Mr. Patten: I believe that we take proper account of additional responsibilities on local authorities, but I want to respond rather more positively than that to my hon. Friend's quite proper question. Over the years there has been a tendency in the House to try to place new responsibilities on local authorities without at the same time willing the money to meet the cost of those responsibilities. We must be much more self-disciplined, therefore, in the responsibilities that we place on local authorities. As long as I am in my present job, I intend to follow that advice.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: Following the nationalisation of the business rate, which was opposed by the Labour party, does not it follow that, if under this system £1 billion less is paid by the business rate than under the old system, £1 billion more is paid by hard-pressed poll tax payers?

Mr. Patten: I point out to the hon. Gentleman the substantial increase in support from taxpayers in this settlement—the 7·65 per cent., leaving aside transitional relief. I am interested in whether the hon. Gentleman's point of view is entirely shared by the Opposition Front Bench. Opposition Front-Bench Members seem to say that businesses should pay less. The hon. Gentleman's argument is that businesses should pay more. We have got it about right.

Mr. Robert Banks: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent statement, in particular his announcement about the tourism element of the SSA, which will be hugely welcomed? In future, will he look at ways in which benefits can be positively made to low-spending and efficient authorities?

Mr. Patten: I certainly hope that, when one is dealing with less-efficient authorities, my proposals on charge capping take account of differences between efficient and less-efficient authorities. On my announcement, we do not propose that any authority spending at or below SSA should come within the community charge capping criteria. But that should not encourage some local authorities to believe that they can increase their spending by the percentage increase in SSAs and think that that is behaving prudently. If a local authority has behaved


prudently in the past and spent below SSA, it should continue to behave in that way. Its community charge payers will not thank it if it still manages to keep below SSA but increases its spending by a large amount.

Mr. Tony Banks: Can the Secretary of State explain how Wandsworth's area protection grant was calculated, and why it is one of the largest in London? Why has Wandsworth got the largest inner London education grant and one of the largest total external support levels in London? Could it be anything to do with the fact that Wandsworth is Tory controlled, and that this statement is bent from start to finish?

Mr. Patten: If the hon. Gentleman had not been so uncharacteristically brief, he might have gone on to ask me why Westminster was paying £75 into the safety net. I am sure that he will know that the amount received by Wandsworth is considerably less than that received by a number of other inner-London boroughs—for example, the borough of Lambeth next door. The hon. Gentleman should perhaps compare the community charges set in those boroughs.

Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the message from today's statement is that the game is up for Labour authorities, and that they should stop wasting their time creating more and more committees and inventing foreign and defence policies that are irrelevant to local authorities? They should stop giving out jobs for the boys—as has happened in Liverpool, Derbyshire and other areas—and concentrate on providing services with increased efficiency, better value for money and the quality that the consumers—the public—demand.

Mr. Patten: Alas—and I think that it is an "alas" that can be heard loudly from both sides of the House—there are one or two examples of what the Labour party understands by fiscal prudence in local government, which do not provide an adequate lesson for anyone. Indeed, they provide a lesson on how not to behave in public life.
My hon. Friend is entirely right. It would be nice if all Labour local authorities tried to provide decent services at a reasonable price. I believe that the local authority in Dagenham has set a rather low community charge. I hope that all local authorities—Conservative and Labour—will remember their responsibilities to their community charge payers.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Will the Secretary of State explain to the House, simply and honestly, why—following the selection of the needs of local authorities—the standard spending assessment is so manifestly unfair? Why does the index for the system allocate to Wakefield metropolitan district council's education department 30 per cent. less than it allocates to Barnet, with all its environmental and financial advantages? There must be a simple answer. The House will be aware that Barnet is in the Prime Minister's constituency. Will the Secretary of State tell the people of Wakefield why they have been treated in this way?

Mr. Patten: If the hon. Gentleman had compared his constituency borough with Haringey rather than Barnet, he might have been able to produce some rather more dramatic figures. The SSA for the hon. Gentleman's

borough will, I suspect, increase by more than the average that I announced earlier. I hope that that will go some way towards satisfying him.
The methodology used to calculate SSAs and distribute grant is based on a year or more of discussions with local authority associations. It is as fair a system as we could produce, but I am prepared to listen to fresh evidence about it from the hon. Gentleman's local council, or from any others.

Sir Anthony Grant: The fact that my right hon. Friend has made this early statement will be welcomed by everyone except those without the faintest idea of what their alternative policy would be. I want to ask my right hon. Friend one specific question: has he any more proposals about the cost-benefit factor, bearing in mind the absurd anomaly—about which I told him earlier—that Oxford benefits from this, whereas Cambridge does not?

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend has, for once, thrown me. I am not quite sure that I understand what he meant in relation to cost benefit. Responding as a graduate of Oxford, and putting my prejudices behind me, I can only say that the local authorities in my hon. Friend's constituency will benefit substantially from the increases in SSA that I have proposed. Whether similar increases will be experienced in the constituency, for example, of my namesake, I cannot recall.

Mr. Chris Smith: Will the Secretary of State give us the answer that he failed to give earlier? Why on earth does Wandsworth deserve £18 protection grant when Islington and Hackney, where the needs are far greater, get nothing whatever?

Mr. Patten: Because of its low rateable values. That is exactly the reason why many constituencies represented by Labour Members are provided with area protection grant. The hon. Gentleman, who knows a good deal about these matters, will have to hunt for a long time and over a lot of ground if he believes that the area protection grant is the main reason for what is happening in Wandsworth. The main reason for the low community charge and the good services in Wandsworth is that it is run by a good Conservative council.

Sir Charles Morrison: The new supernumerary payment for police is enormously welcome to several local authorities. Is my right hon. Friend aware, for example, that it will assist the efforts of the newly Conservative-controlled Wiltshire county council to set a community charge of, not £380 or even £379—the level that would have been set if the previous Lib-Lab coalition had remained in power—but about £356?

Mr. Patten: I look forward to being a beneficiary of good Conservative administration in Wiltshire. My hon. Friend made a serious point about police protection. Several local authorities have had to take on a considerable burden—as I know myself—over the past few months and years because of terrorist attacks and other reasons. It is wholly right that we should recognise that in the SSAs.

Ms. Diane Abbott: May I return the Secretary of State to the subject of Wandsworth, which fascinates all of us who represent London boroughs? I want to think the best of the


Secretary of State. I do not want to think that there has been a squalid fix, so will he explain why Wandsworth has the highest inner London education grant?

Mr. Patten: The SSAs in Wandsworth are a great deal lower than in the hon. Lady's constituency. I very much hope that the constituents of the hon. Lady, of her hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and those in other London constituencies which at present have Labour local authorities will learn from what is happening in Wandsworth and provide excellent services at a reasonable charge.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Will my right hon. Friend accept that, after 30 years in local government politics and 10 years as chairman of finance, I still find the figures a mystery wrapped in an enigma, as someone greater than any of us said? Next year could he at least produce comparable figures so that those of us who represent people understand what the basic figures mean and what the past means? It does not help anyone in the House not to understand a blind thing that the figures mean. All that we have is one set of initials after another. If we are to take part on a sensible basis in local government finance for our people, can we at least understand the figures, or are we not meant to understand them? As far as I understand it, Birmingham will receive 19 per cent. more. Is that true or not?

Mr. Patten: On comparable figures, one of—

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Are we getting 19 per cent. more?

Mr. Patten: I shall try to answer my hon. Friend, recognising as I do his expertise in these matters. [Laughter.] That was meant to be a compliment. As my hon. Friend will know, in the first three or four years of the new system we have had the safety net, the area protection grant, to help some local authorities which we believe were disadvantaged by the shift from Exchequer equalisation. That complicates some of the simplicities which would otherwise be abundantly plain not only to my hon. Friend but even to me. I hope that, as the area protection grant unwinds, comparisons will be even simpler than they are at present. I was not keen on a major overhaul this year because I wanted to make those comparisons easier rather than more difficult. I am glad that my hon. Friend supports me in that.
Although I do not have a slide rule with me to make the precise calculation, I can tell my hon. Friend that Birmingham will get a much bigger SSA.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why does not the Secretary of State admit that he has fiddled the figures to aid Tory marginals at the next general election? Why is it that, according to the SSA, if the Derbyshire grants had been allocated on the same basis as those for Wandsworth and Westminster, rather than having a poll tax, we would have been giving £308 to every poll tax payer instead of collecting a penny piece? The people of Derbyshire are yearning for the chance to get rid of this lousy Government and their evil tax and to replace the tax in the first year of a Labour Government.

Mr. Patten: If my purpose in making this announcement—

Mr. Skinner: Answer my question.

Mr. Patten: I will do so directly to the hon. Gentleman and with the great regard that the whole House shows him. If my purpose in these figures were to help secure the Conservative party's chances at the next election, I should like the hon. Gentleman to explain why we are making £133 a head available to his constituency through the safety net.

Sir Peter Emery: Although I congratulate my right hon. Friend on clearing up several reasonable anomalies which have worried many people, does he realise that the figures as published are not understood by the ordinary charge payer? Would he consider publishing the indicative level estimate of community charge, as he did last year, because that allows the community charge payer to compare what the Government think with what the local authority delivers?

Mr. Patten: I had to publish even more figures last year and, doubtless, run the gauntlet of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook—

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: How dare my right hon. Friend say that!

Mr. Patten: I meant my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark), and I agree that it is not easy to make that confusion.
My hon. Friend asks for more figures. Last year we had to produce what my Department likes to call exemplifications for all local authorities of what the community charge would have been if the local authority had spent exactly as we wanted. We had to produce those figures because of the safety net and the introduction of the transitional relief scheme. Thank God, those reference points stand and we do not have to publish similar sets of figures again because people tend to regard them as predictions. If I produced figures for local authorities, all the figures would be £380, because that is what the community charge at standard spending should be. Nevertheless, I believe that many local authorities should be able to produce a community charge lower than that.

Mrs. Rosie Barnes: Does the Secretary of State accept that all pretence of increased local accountability has gone from this tax? As central Government have imposed an increasingly tightened straitjacket on local authorities, voters, rather than expressing their views on their local authorities' performance, are likely to use the ballot box to give their verdict on the tax itself.

Mr. Patten: It is unarguable that many local authorities used the introduction of the new system as a smoke screen behind which they brought in much higher increases in spending—after all, the increase in spending this year was 13·5 per cent. That resulted in much higher community charges than anyone on the Conservative Benches would have liked to see—I cannot speak for those on the Opposition Benches. In those circumstances, it is reasonable in the early years of the tax to contemplate using the powers that I am given under the Local Government Finance Act 1988 to charge-cap local authorities. The hon. Lady's constituency receives £285 under the safety net and that authority should be able to budget sensibly with such support. I hope that it will learn to do so.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the charge-capping proposals he has announced today will be widely welcomed in the country, simply because they will protect people from high-spending local authorities? They will not protect people from high-spending authorities seeking to spend more money on services, but, in general, from Labour local authorities which have entirely lost control of their spending.

Mr. Patten: That is perfectly correct. No local authority that spends at, or below, SSA will come into the frame for the charge-capping criteria I have announced. I repeat what I said earlier: local authority leaders pressed me to set out the criteria for charge capping for next year before they set their budgets. I have done so and local authorities know precisely where they stand. Therefore, any local authority that comes within the charge-capping criteria when it sets its budget will, in effect, be volunteering to do so.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Earlier this year, the electorate of the Rotherham metropolitan borough council area reaffirmed their allegiance to the Labour party and the Labour council. That was followed by the Government making that local authority cut £7·9 million from its budget this year. Is not it true that the criteria that the right hon. Gentleman has announced today are nothing more than a message to the people of Rotherham and elsewhere that if they support the Labour party they will lose any accountability regarding the poll tax and that everything will be run from Whitehall from now on?

Mr. Patten: No, that is not the message. The criteria indicate that I am prepared to use the powers given to me statutorily to cap local authority spending. I have also made it clear today that I want the substantial increase in external support to local authorities to be spent not only to help to continue to improve local services, but to abate increases in the community charge.

Mr. Bob Dunn: Is the Secretary of State aware that some small district councils in the south-east are suffering pressure on two counts; first, as a result of the loss of business rate income and, secondly, because those local authorities have a small population? On the latter, can my right hon. Friend confirm, either today or in writing, the precise source and year for obtaining population figures used in the calculation of the SSA? Secondly, will he undertake—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a ration of one question today.

Mr. Patten: I know of my hon. Friend's concern about that and how vigorously he has represented his local authority and constituents on it. The population figures are arrived at in a variety of ways, but basically they are obtained from the numbers on the community charge register and from figures from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. I hope that my hon. Friend's local authority has been in touch with the OPCS, but if I can give him any further assistance on that matter I shall be pleased to do so.

Mr. Martin Redmond: Will the Secretary of State undertake to meet representatives from the six northern capped authorities to discuss the inadequacies of the SSAs?

Mr. Patten: My right hon. Friend who is now the Secretary of State for Wales and I met representatives of those local authorities earlier in the year, sometimes collectively, sometimes individually. We are always prepared to receive representations from local authorities. We spend a good deal of time between the autumn and spring receiving local authority representatives to discuss a variety of matters. When the hon. Gentleman sees the standard spending assessments for his and other local authorities I do not think that he will be too worried about them.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I warmly welcome the average increase of 19·4 per cent. in standard spending assessments for the next financial year, but would my right hon. Friend say whether he believes that it will adequately make up the undoubted underprovision for Cheshire county council and the responsible and well-run Macclesfield borough council in the current financial year? Does my right hon. Friend think that it is appropriate that local authorities, hard pressed as they are, should assume responsibility for resources for community care that were hitherto funded entirely by the national health service?

Mr. Patten: When my hon. Friend looks at the figures he will discover that the standard spending assessment for his constituency will go up substantially in percentage terms by comparison with others. As my hon. Friend knows, in future his constituents will not have to make the £51 contribution to the safety net that they have been making.
We have made available adequate resources for phasing in the community care proposals, the first year of which will be 1991–92, and we want to ensure that we make adequate provision for future years. One of our considerations when planning phasing was the cost of going ahead, which was exaggerated by some of the local authority associations.

Mr. Harry Cohen: The Secretary of State has left out one set of figures from his poll tax package—the huge number of job losses that will flow from it. Those jobs will involve home helps for the elderly, community care for the disabled and mentally ill and social workers for children at risk. When battered babies die, will the Secretary of State be around to pick up an ounce of responsibility?

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman referred to jobs. One important factor is that those who have jobs should be there to do them. He may recall that the Audit Commission recently produced a report on sickness absence in 10 London local authorities, of which six were Labour and the others Liberal Democrat or had no one party in overall control. Of the six worst, it was discovered that if they could reduce sickness absence to the average of Confederation of British Industry members, £26 million and £27 a head on the community charge would be saved.

Mr. Keith Mans: In the coming months, will my right hon. Friend consider publishing a set of statistics to show the number of full-time equivalent staff employed by shire counties as that would give a clear indication of where commuinity charge payers' money is being used to pay bureaucrats rather than provide services?

Mr. Patten: I am certainly prepared to consider providing that information. I do not think that we can provide it at present, but it is an extremely good idea and I shall see what we can do about it.

Mr. Allen McKay: Does not the Secretary of State accept that the problem of central Government is that, during the past 10 years, they have sought to abdicate their responsibilities to local government without giving local authorities the finance to carry out those responsibilities? The Secretary of State has met our local authorities, and from his statement it seems that their words have fallen on stony ground. The Secretary of State made a statement about the average of £380, which my authority would be happy to accept so that it could stop the deterioration in services, including education services. If the Secretary of State is that concerned, he should come to see the damage that he is causing.

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman will know that his local authority is receiving £150 from the safety net—

Mr. Skinner: A phoney argument.

Mr. Patten: It certainly is not. I know that many Labour local authorities would very much like to receive support from the safety net.
The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) has made vigorous representations on behalf of his constituents and I am sure that he will continue to do so, but I do not accept, given the figure for help from the safety net that I have just mentioned, that he is being entirely fair.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: My right hon. Friend stressed the importance of collecting the charge. Is he aware that, in Leeds, many standing orders which were properly submitted and acknowledged many months ago still have not been processed; and that, due to industrial action, even cash payments are being turned away by council staff? In his calculations of the outstanding arrears due on the charge, will he say how much is due to incompetence and mismanagement by Labour authorities?

Mr. Patten: The usual suspects are in the dock; the figures that my hon. Friend mentioned are appalling. The major ingredient in the lower collection figures in some areas has been administrative incompetence, not the activities of the campaign supported by one or two Opposition Members. I very much hope that in the coming months and next year local authorities will make sure that they collect the community charge. In so far as they do not, those who pay lawfully and responsibly will have to face larger bills, and that is intolerable.

Mr. James Lamond: Does the Secretary of State realise that among the 90 per cent. about whom he was boasting who have begun to pay something towards their poll tax there are many elderly people and people on low incomes who cannot pay? They want to stay within the law and they pay what they can, but they cannot meet the full bill. Does he realise that no amount of tinkering with the poll tax will cure that problem or make them accept it? Why does not he abandon it altogether and go back to the rating system which they understood and under which they were able to pay?

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman should know that we are spending £2·25 billion on community charge benefit, that next year we shall spend about £500 million on the transitional relief scheme, and that pensions will rise substantially next year. The best way in which Labour councillors and local authorities can help the groups to which the hon. Gentleman referred is by setting a reasonable community charge.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I thank my right hon. Friend for listening to our pleas to increase the significance of the tourist input and weighting for the elderly, and for calculating that on up-to-date figures, but may I point out that he said in his answer that Wandsworth receives area protection because it has low rateable values? As I told him earlier today, we have in Lancaster 5,106 houses of below £56 rateable value and 4,647 of between £57 and £80 rateable value. That makes a total of 17 per cent. of housing, in addition to which many mobile homes are occupied by elderly people in order to cut their costs. My right hon. Friend has given area protection to Burnley; why has not he given it to Lancaster? Will he change his mind and give it to us forthwith?

Mr. Patten: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said about tourism. I shall certainly look at the arguments that she puts forward in her second point. She will appreciate that one reason why we increased the transitional relief scheme was precisely to help people living in the sort of accommodation to which she referred. Of course they are people who would be seriously hurt by revaluation and the return to domestic rates which the Labour party supports.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the Secretary of State accept that his reputation as the gauleiter of Marsham street is preserved intact by his statement, and that it represents a cut, given the annual rate of inflation of more than 10 per cent., because it is only a 7·65 per cent. increase in central Government support? So it is a continuation of the policy of the past 10 years of cutting central Government support to local authorities which, after all, provide not bureaucratic services but services for the mentally handicapped, in education, in housing and in social services—services which should be sustained and supported, not crimped and attacked, as the Government have done in this statement.

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman has reminded us all once again that a joke from him is no laughing matter. He overlooked the fact that we are increasing aggregate external finance by 12·8 per cent. next year—a large increase in support for local authorities. The best thing that could happen to the hon. Gentleman's constituents would be the return in Bradford of a Conservative administration under Councillor Pickles.

Mr. Paul Marland: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his willingness to continue to review the workings of the community charge, to update and improve it. Is he aware of the tremendous resentment among those who have paid against those who have not paid the community charge? I am advised that the costs of taking the non-payers to court is not covered by their contribution to the legal costs. Will my right hon. Friend consider increasing the contribution to the legal costs of court appearances made by non-payers of the community charge?

Mr. Patten: I shall look at the point. I think that the broad thrust of my hon. Friend's argument is entirely right. There is growing resentment on the part of those who have paid against the small minority who are freeloading. I hope that local authorities will remember that they have the whole of next year to collect any community charge that has not been paid this year. I hope that they will make a sensible distinction between what is uncollectable and what is uncollected, and that what they regard as uncollectable will be as small a percentage as possible.

Ms. Joan Walley: It is all very well for the Secretary of State to talk about meeting local authorities, but precisely what account has he taken of the all-party representations made by Staffordshire county council, which made it clear that the first year we stood to lose £33 million from our budget because of the way in which the SSA was formulated? Will he tell me, now that we will be below the 19 per cent. national average, how he expects Staffordshire county council to afford the extra spending that has been highlighted by the report of its social services department on statutory social services?

Mr. Patten: I imagine that when the hon. Lady looks at the SSA for her district council and sees that it has risen by more than the average she will sing the Government's praises. The figures for local authorities fall either side of 19·4 per cent.—in some cases above it, as in the case of the district council to which she referred, in some cases below it, as in the case of her county council, although only fractionally, I think.

Mr. Stephen Day: Overspending local authorities such as Stockport always complain that they are treated unfavourably compared with their neighbours. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the formula and criteria that apply in determining grants apply equally to all local authorities?

Mr. Patten: Absolutely right: they apply to all local authorities. Opposition Members tend to ignore the substantial contributions made to Labour local authorities, but I am sure that in the course of the debates that may lie ahead we shall have many opportunities to point out those contributions.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The Secretary of State will expect his statement to receive justifiably careful scrutiny, but will that scrutiny reveal considerable changes in the method of reaching his determination? For example, will there be much less reliance on the outdated figures contained in the 1980–81 census, and will there be an end to the assumption that snow lies on the ground more in Westminster and Wandsworth than in the rest of the country?

Mr. Patten: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's last point. He should look at the figures for places such as Lambeth. When he examines the figures that I have announced and the methodology, he will see that we have made a few adjustments this year. They are all entirely justified. I think that the next census is in 1991 and will have to be taken into account in future distributions.

Mr. David Madel: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the long history of overspending by the Labour-Liberal Democrat-controlled Bedfordshire county council, which is presently spending

15 per cent. more than its budget last year. May I take it that, if that is repeated, in 1991–92 the council will be charge-capped? Does he agree that next year the council should put the community charge payer first rather than its big spending programmes?

Mr. Patten: I think that the local authority to which my hon. Friend refers increased its income this year by about
16 per cent. My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that that is unacceptable and that local authorities such as that one and others should budget in future to provide decent services at a price that community charge payers can afford. That is wholly within the bounds of the possible as some local authorities, including some comparable to the one mentioned by my hon. Friend, have proved.

Mr. Ron Brown: Surely the central point is that the Tory Government have been cheating on local councils for some time. Over the last 10 years about £10 billion has been cut from local budgets because state funding has been denied to many parts of England and Wales simply on the diktat of the Government. He will find resistance to the poll tax all over the country because many people cannot afford to pay and will not pay. A short time ago—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should bring his remarks to a close. The statement does not affect Scotland and perhaps I should not have called him.

Mr. Brown: Some 30,000 people were on the streets of London protesting against the poll tax. If that number were multiplied several million times, it would indicate the strength of opinion against the Government, their policies and the poll tax.

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman will recall that some of those who demonstrated recently in London were on anarchist weekend breaks from other European capitals.

Mr. Barry Field: Does my right hon. Friend know that the Isle of Wight is the biggest and best attraction in the south for visitors from England? I thank him for the tourist calculaton revision. Can he reassure me that his Department have looked carefully at the arguments set out in the document "An Island Apart" and will he confirm that the SSA calculation takes into account built-up roads? If the Isle of Wight had a universal speed limit, it would automatically get an increase in the standard spending assessment.

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend was one of those who made eloquent representations about changing the SSA methodology and taking proper account of tourism. We listened to him as we listened to others. As I said earlier, of course we shall take account of further representations on the SSA methodology. I am sure that if we implemented all the representations made by my hon. Friend the Isle of Wight would get rather more.

Mr. John Evans: The Secretary of State's refusal to improve the social services SSA for St. Helens and the other northern metropolitan authorities is an outrage. Will he give an absolute guarantee that the Government will pick up the entire bill for whatever settlement the teachers receive and that poll tax payers will not be additionally burdened? Will he make it clear to his hon. Friends that St. Helens is a well-run and efficient local authority?

Mr. Patten: When the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures, he will see that there is a substantial increase in the SSA for St. Helens. He may have heard me say earlier that the education element in the SSAs is increasing by 16 per cent. I am sure that he is also aware of the point made extremely strongly in an admirable letter in this morning's edition of The Independent from the director of the South Bank polytechnic, a former inspector with Her Majesty's inspectorate. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that there is no mechanistic relationship between the amount spent on education and the quality of that education.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we would be delighted to have job cuts in Derbyshire in the overflowing publicity department of the county council? We would love to have cuts in the £17 million subsidy, as it will be next year, for school meals in Derbyshire for which the price will not have increased for 10 years. That is where the grants go in Derbyshire. They subsidise baked beans and free council newspapers. If the council carries on like that next year, will my right hon. Friend cap it again?

Mr. Patten: I hope that the leader of Derbyshire county council will pay rather more attention to my hon. Friend's argument than he has done in the past. I also hope that Derbyshire will take account of the criteria that I have announced and will bring in a budget to provide good services at a reasonable cost for Derbyshire charge payers, who have been much put upon in the last few years.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Under the SSA for north-east Derbyshire, 45 per cent. of the bill has to be paid by poll tax payers and less than 15 per cent. comes from various forms of central Government funding. Is not this due to the fiddled nature of the SSA formula? If an area is mixed and has rural and urban provision, it loses on density and sparsity grants. If people move out of the area to work, they also lose. If the area has a mixture of middle and working class people, it fails to meet the social deprivation provisions. That affects Derbyshire as a whole, which is sorely treated by the Minister.

Mr. Patten: No, that is not true. First, the hon. Gentleman's constituency will see a substantial uplift in SSAs. Secondly, we take account of social deprivation. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) has left the Chamber, because, as experts on local authorities in all parts of the House will know, it is difficult to find an adequate way of reflecting some hon. Members' concerns about economic factors in the SSA methodology. We shall continue to look at any fresh evidence that is received on that.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I welcome my right hon. Friend's early and clear statement on charge capping. Is he aware that in Norwich there is concern that community charge bills may be elevated as a result of a non-payment campaign? If that happens, will he make sure that the blame is placed firmly on those who took part in that campaign—the Labour-controlled Norwich city council? Will he use his charge-capping powers where appropriate?

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is right once again to draw attention to the chance that we have given local authorities

to budget sensibly by setting the criteria on charge capping ahead of the season during which local authorities are starting to construct their budgets. I repeat that, in the light of my statement, local authorities that are capped will themselves have deliberately chosen that course of action.
My hon. Friend mentioned collection. I am sure that every responsible hon. Member believes that everybody should pay his community charge. If, at the end of the year, some community charges are uncollected, local authorities have next year to collect them. However, we must remember that some local authorities, of which Lambeth is one, are still collecting rates from years ago.

Miss Kate Hoey: In working out his standard assessment charge, has the Secretary of State taken into account the decision made last week by his own Department that there would be an end to the subsidy for private sector leasing for homeless families? Does he realise the repercussions that that will have on people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, not just in boroughs such as Lambeth, but in many Tory authority areas? Does he appreciate the extra charge that that will place on the poll tax? Will he say more about how he considered the question of homelessness in working out the SSA?

Mr. Patten: The hon. Lady was asking whether I took that into account in setting the level of the figures that I announced earlier. The answer to that question is, yes I did. On homelessness, as the hon. Lady will know, last year we made available, over two years, a package worth £250 million for London and the stress areas. We shall make further announcements about rooflessness and homelessness later next month.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: My right hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the people of Lancashire, in Blackpool, Blackburn, Hindburn, Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale, are grateful for the area protection grant. Will he confirm that, as a consequence of his announcement of total external support, £600 for every community charge payer in Lancashire will go to their local authorities, from Government and industry?

Mr. Patten: Local authorities in Lancashire will be receiving substantial support from Government and business ratepayers. I hope that local authorities in Lancashire, particularly the county council, will recognise that fact and will also recognise their responsibility to set a prudent budget, which is more than Lancashire county council did this year.

Mr. David Clelland: The Secretary of State has made much of the increases in SSAs, but does he not understand that a 19 per cent. increase in an unrealistic SSA does not result in a realistic one? Unless the SSA is allied accurately to what a council needs to spend to maintain its services, the council will be caught by the ridiculous criteria for poll tax capping. That will mean that the city of Newcastle upon Tyne will find it impossible to contain its spending within a 9 per cent. increase, which is what the increase will be, as inflation is running at 10·9 per cent., with the result that there will be severe and painful cuts in services, which will be entirely his responsibility.

Mr. Patten: I am not sure what the hon. Member would regard as an acceptable increase in total standard spending or in SSAs. Let me give him one example of what we are being asked to do. Some local authorities, although not all,


say that, instead of allowing for total standard spending next year of £39 billion, we should have allowed for £41 billion. That would have meant an increase in local authority spending of one third in two years. I think that that is not tolerable, and I doubt whether the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer would regard that as tolerable, certainly not in his Gladstonian mode.

Mr. James Cran: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to speak directly to my constituents, who happen to be the paymasters for local government in Humberside, and assure them that his proposals will lead to no repetition next year of what happened last year, whereby Labour-controlled Humberside county council increased its spending by 11·5 per cent. and took about £70 per person more than was necessary? If he cannot do that, will he use the opportunity of the boundary commission report that he has on his desk to give us a permanent solution to overspending in Humberside by abolishing that council?

Mr. Patten: I note my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for the consequences of the Local Government Act 1972. I have my own views on aspects of that legislation. I have today set out clearly and explicitly my firm intentions about the criteria that should be applied to local authority excessive spending next year. I have explained how I intend to use both the powers that are available to me under the Local Government Finance Act 1988. I hope that it will not be necessary to use those powers, but if local authorities try to place on their charge payers a burden that is too substantial, I will not hesitate to use my statutory powers.

Ms. Hilary Armstrong: How does the Secretary of State justify the change in weighting affecting the under-fives, which will penalise those authorities such as North Tyneside and Durham, which are Labour authorities, that provide the opportunity for the youngest of children, while at the same time ensuring that authorities such as West Sussex, which provide virtually no opportunity for children under five, will be quids in? He could have saved money. He has chosen instead to make sure that this country stands alone in Europe as the one nation that will not support opportunities for under-fives.

Mr. Patten: I know that, like me, the hon. Lady is extremely interested in this subject. The SSAs for her constituency have gone up by well above the average figure, which I mentioned earlier. As for the overall weighting given to the additional educational needs indicator under the SSAs, we have increased it from 12 to 24 per cent. However, as I said earlier, as a result of an adjustment of 1·5 per cent. it comes back down to 22·5 per cent. next year. I can assure the hon. Lady that I was pressed by local authorities to do a great deal more.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: My right hon. Friend has dealt with homelessness and education. Does he agree that while there is a ridiculously wasteful situation of 100,000 empty council homes and 2 million empty school desks—a fair share of which are in my local authority—it is right to keep making councils more accountable? I welcome his decision to extend his powers on capping, because the community charge payers have to pick up the bill for the waste.

Mr. Patten: It is true that empty houses and half-empty schools cost community charge payers a great deal of money. We have spoken about Wandsworth a number of times today, and we shall have opportunities to celebrate its successes in the future. One reason why it has managed to do so well is that it has a much better record on issues such as empty houses and schools than other local authorities.

Mr. Jim Cousins: Does the Secretary of State accept that bankruptcies are rising, the economy, especially in the retail sector, is having a hard time, there are more than half a million appeals against business rate revaluations, and that in my city a third of the business ratepayers are in arrears with their payments? Will he guarantee that local authorities will riot be thrown into crisis because of a shortfall in the collection of business rates?

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman has underestimated the number of appeals. I think that the figure is more like 600,000, although we were expecting about I million. He will know that one result of revaluation and the UBR is that businesses, especially manufacturing, and warehousing, outside inner London and certainly in the north have done particularly well. Overall, small shops will be paying 2 per cent. less in real terms than they paid last year. I t is true that there are some areas where the retailing sector is going through difficulties. That has much more to do with the necessary measures that we are taking to abate inflation than with the UBR. The hon. Gentleman might remember that business rates are typically about 1 to 2 per cent. of turnover and represent 25 per cent. of occupancy costs in business.

Mr. Richard Holt: My right hon. Friend's statement will be welcomed in the north of England, particularly as the full realisation of the transfer of UBR income from the south to the north shows a real commitment in regional policy to that area. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has listened also to the many representations made to him. Will he continue to keep under review the anomalous situation whereby, in low rated houses in the north of England, individuals are being unfairly treated by the alteration in their rateable value when it comes to calculating their community charge?

Mr. Patten: It was largely because of representations from my hon. Friend and other hon. Friends in similar constituencies that we concluded that it was necessary to reduce the threshold for the transitional relief scheme from £3 to £2, with the result that we shall be spending about twice as much on the scheme, which will go overwhelmingly to people living in low rateable value accommodation.
My hon. Friend has also called on us on several occasions to extend the transitional relief scheme and not to phase it out as rapidly as we had been proposing, and we responded to that as well. When my hon. Friend's constituents in low rateable value accommodation find themselves as couples receiving £52 more next year than this year, they will have my hon. Friend to thank.

Mr. John P. Smith: Is the Secretary of State aware that nothing that he has said this afternoon changes the fact that in my constituency Tom Jones, the international singing star, will be paying exactly the same poll tax as an old-age pensioner who came into


my surgery on Saturday and broke down in tears because she is on a fixed income of less than £70 a week and cannot afford to pay the poll tax? What is the right hon. Gentleman's honest opinion?

Mr. Patten: First, if Tom Jones is as well-heeled as I imagine he is, he will be paying about 15 times as much as the poorest people in the community if account is taken of his contributions through tax and those through the community charge.
Secondly, I am sure that a single pensioner in the hon. Gentleman's constituency would be horrified at the prospect of once again being faced with a rating system, especially one that was operated after revaluation, and paying the same in rates as four or five wage earners in the property next door.

Sir William Shelton: My right hon. Friend may be aware of the damning report produced by the district auditor last month on Lambeth council's finances. He said, among other things, that by May or June of this year about 40,000 community charge bills had not been sent out. The new chief executive has spoken of near catastrophe in the finances and as a result of the corruption of the administrative system. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that should there be a need to cap the community charge of Lambeth next year, despite the fact that Lambeth has the highest total external support of any London borough, he will have the necessary powers in place by next spring?

Mr. Patten: It is my intention to ensure for the future that there is not a scintilla of doubt about local authorities' budgets having to be transferred into a lower level of community charge after capping. It is astonishing that a local authority should be so keen to ensure that whatever happens to its budget its community charge payers will be clobbered. I feel extremely sorry for my hon. Friend's constituents. I am horrified at the activities of a Labour local authority that has consistently governed a borough so irresponsibly for so many years.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Stott.

Several Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Roger Stott: You must call us in alphabetical order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Front-Bench spokesmen do not get quite the same consideration.

Mr. Stott: If the Secretary of State wanted an example of a local authority that managed its affairs well and was responsible, reasonable and non-profligate, does he agree that he would need to look no further than the metropolitan borough of Wigan? The price that we paid for our prudence and efficiency was to be charge-capped by the right hon. Gentleman earlier this year. He arrived at that judgment on the basis of a formula which has been widely attacked by my right hon. and hon. Friends. The formula is fatuous in the extreme and dishonest. When will the right hon. Gentleman and his Ministers listen to the reasonable and moderate men and women who lead our councils, who put to him views that he has already heard about the appalling state of affairs that face authorities that have been poll tax-capped and the iniquitous way in

which the SSA formula has affected them? What he has said and outlined this afternoon amounts to no more than tinkering at the edges, without taking into consideration anything that local authorities have told him.

Mr. Patten: Would that it were the case that all those who run our local authorities were moderate and responsible men and women. I concede that in many areas there are authorities that are run by a majority of Labour or Conservative councillors where individuals are acting in the best traditions of public service. Unfortunately, not a million miles away from the hon. Gentleman's constituency, as he will know, there are examples to the contrary.
One of the major representations made by leaders of the several councils which we capped this year was that before they set their budgets in future we should set out without any doubt or qualification our intentions on criteria for charge capping so that they could budget accordingly. That is why I have made my statement as early as I have. I do not believe that the formula that we have announced could possibly be argued by anybody as being defective. The hon. Gentleman's constituency has received, I think, £69 through the safety net, as was its due.

Mr. David Martin: In welcoming the more generous transitional arrangements for small businesses where the owner lives over the shop, may I ask my right hon. Friend to give further guidance about the arrangements for bed-and-breakfast accommodation? It is a matter on which he has received many representations, including those from myself.

Mr. Patten: As my hon. Friend will know, we put out some proposals for consultation earlier in the year. We have received many representations, and these have demonstrated that there is not a consensus. We shall soon be making our announcement on the arrangements that we shall use to try to square the various circles that have been presented to us.

Mr. Dick Douglas: We know that Scotland was the trailblazer for the poll tax. We know also that the Secretary of State's statements are often trailblazers for those of the Secretary of State for Scotland. I ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to clarify one or two brief points.

Mr. Speaker: One brief point, please.

Mr. Douglas: In paragraph 22, what does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "job-related houses"? Do these houses have to be owned? What occupations is the right hon. Gentleman talking about? Are the police included?
Secondly, will the Secretary of State confirm—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not fair. Everyone else has asked only one question. The hon. Gentleman has no great status in this, as the statement does not affect Scotland.

Mr. Douglas: I have the status of having had a sheriff officer in my house to—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Douglas: With respect, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This statement concerns England.

Mr. Douglas: I know that it is about England. Let me tell right hon. and hon. Members that if they had paid attention to legislation that passes through the House that


will affect Scotland, it would not have been necessary for the Secretary of State to make his statement this afternoon.
As for the balance of local government expenditure, am I right in saying that the Secretary of State now expects a third of local government revenue to come form the poll tax? If the right hon. Gentleman is thinking about yielding to temptation, he should understand that people are not yielding to temptation when it comes to non-payment. Instead they are yielding to the temptation of having to feed their bairns and look after their old, rather than pay a hated tax.

Mr. Patten: Many of the definitions that we shall use for the standard charge are in tax law. If the hon. Gentleman wants more information about that, I should be happy to let him have it.

Mr. Douglas: Will the police be included?

Mr. Patten: Hold on a moment. These are categories that we shall have to consider in relation to existing tax law. I have mentioned some categories and some individuals who will be affected. The hon. Gentleman asked an extensive question and I am trying to answer it.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asked about the proportion of local government spending that would be paid for by the community charge. Taking account of contributions for transitional relief and community charge benefit, that which is met by the community charge payer will be just over 25 per cent. There will be variations from one part of the country to another. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that when he studies the comparisons between Scotland, England and Wales.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the new Conservative-controlled Ealing council will certainly reduce the wickedly wasteful spending of its Labour predecessor, and with it the community charge? Does he know—

Mr. Gould: What about services?

Mr. Greenway: Services will be improved at the same time. Is he aware that business is being attracted back into Ealing because we have a good, sensible Conservative council? Will he ensure that the people of Ealing and its council benefit from the additional business rate that will be generated by business being attracted back to Ealing?

Mr. Patten: I am sure that a Conservative council in Ealing will encourage economic development through several of its activities. I am sure, for example, that it will be able to provide good-quality services at a reasonable cost, which will encourage several commercial sectors, and that it will encourage local residents such as the Leader of the Opposition, who I am sure must be grateful to have such a good local authority.
May I return to a question that I was asked earlier by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas)? I said that we would be using definitions that are familiar in tax law. [Interruption.] Let me continue. I said that we were talking about people such as clergymen, service men and teachers. If a policeman has to live on the job, as it were, but has another home, he will qualify, too.

Mr. John Greenway: I thank my right hon. Friend for what appear to be substantial increases in the SSAs for North Yorkshire and North Yorkshire districts.

As he will know, those increases are based on a target community charge of £380, which is £102 higher than this year's charge. Is not it clear that authorities that set community charges at or about the target for this year will have to spend less than the SSA for next year, or there will be large rises in community charge bills?

Mr. Patten: Yes, that is certainly the case. I very much hope that local authorities will take account of that when considering their responsibilities to their community charge payers.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that for constituencies such as mine, which has a low-spending, effective and efficient Conservative-controlled borough council, but which suffers under a high-spending and profligate socialist county council, his new, improved, restyled Bill, when issued next year, will make clear who is responsible for overspending?

Mr. Patten: I very much hope that that will be so. It will make clear what proportion of the bill is the responsibility of the county council.

Mr. Michael Stern: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the stringent criteria that he has set out this afternoon for maximum spending by councils will be particularly welcome to hard-pressed community charge payers in areas such as the Labour and parrot-controlled county of Avon? Does he agree that it is to be hoped that one effect of the criteria that he has announced will be that instead of making just financial adjustments councils will, for the first time, consider their spending levels?

Mr. Patten: I agree with my hon. Friend, not least in relation to Avon, in which I also have an interest.

Mr. Tony Favell: More grant for town halls means more taxes. Will my right hon. Friend take an early opportunity to find out from the Opposition's spokesman whether he is in favour of more grant for town halls? I am sure that the shadow Treasury team would like to know. If not, could we not have gone home an hour and a half ago and taken the dog for a walk?

Mr. Patten: The Opposition are opaque on that issue. When the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer is here they are in favour of fiscal prudence, but when their other Front-Bench spokesmen are here they are in favour of spending more money.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I welcome widely the three changes in tourism grant, education and police, which are part of the submission by Dorset county council and the district councils to my right hon. Friend, but, before the final settlement is reached, will the Government reconsider the cost adjustment factor? The Government say that, in logic, certain counties will have to pay more because of the cost of living in an area, but drawing a line around the south-east and excluding counties such as Dorset, Cambridgeshire, Wiltshire and Avon will cost us much money. Hampshire is receiving an extra 4·5 per cent. That would be another £18 million on our grant, which would take it from £28 million to £46 million. It makes a great deal of difference. Dorset county council overspent its SSA by 4 per cent. It would have been below its SSA if we had had that money last year.

Mr. Patten: At present, we have a satisfactory way of calculating differences in costs only on a regional basis, but I continue to be prepared to consider other suggested formulae.

Mr. Michael Jack: My right hon. Friend may be aware that in the past three years Lancashire county council has spent £2,400 million of the public's money but posted efficiency savings of only some £22 million. That is a pathetic performance. The people of the Fylde coast, while welcoming his excellent announcement on tourism and the money that that will bring, will worry that the inefficiency of Lancashire county council will remove the benefits that he has conferred on them. To that end, so that they may judge its efficiency, will he publish figures of best practice in local government so that they can keep a close eye on the robber barons in county hall?

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend will know of the part that the Audit Commission plays in encouraging best practice in local government. He has always been interested in greater energy efficiency. The Audit Commission demonstrated not long ago that local authorities could save £100 million a year by best practice in energy efficiency.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on switching his population analysis from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys figures, which unfairly underestimated the population of some boroughs, notably Gravesham, to the numbers on the community charge register, which will favour efficient registering authorities? May I also express my disappointment at the continuing failure to classify the borough of Gravesham as being among the fringe boroughs? It continues to be the only district so close to London that is not classified as a fringe borough.

Mr. Patten: I am afraid that I have not quite done what my hon. Friend thought in the first part of his question that I had done, but I shall nevertheless look into that issue and into the second point that he made and perhaps write to him on both.

Mr. Chris Butler: Does my right hon. Friend think that it is fair for councillors to continue to collect allowances that are paid for the community when those councillors do not pay their community charges, or that itinerants who use community services so easily continue to escape their liability?

Mr. Patten: Other people's consciences continually amaze me. I cannot understand how Labour councillors can conceivably collect allowances and refuse to pay their community charge, while expecting other people to pay their charges and taxes to pay for their allowances.

Mr. David Blunkett: Has the Secretary of State examined his conscience about the impact of poll tax capping on children in schools, on the elderly receiving social services and on those in need? Will he confirm that if we take the settlement for this year with the one that has been announced this afternoon for next year, we find that the contribution from central Government to local spending has decreased from 38·6 to 35 per cent., and that the amount from the poll tax is predicted to increase from 28·6 to 32·3 per cent.? As a consequence, we see not an increase of 7·6 per cent. in the

amount of central Government grant but a revenue support grant increase, year on year, of 1·9 per cent., which is nothing like what has been suggested.
Will the right hon. Gentleman also confirm that, in the major change in the assessment of the other services bloc for tourism, which was welcomed by Conservative Back Benchers as though it were a major change, he took into account the feelings of his constituents in Bath, such as Mr. Troop, who on the "World at One" today, speaking as a business man, said that Thatcherite sustained growth, theme park Britain will not be able to feed or clothe itself in the future? He said that at that rate—I think that he was talking about the national business rate—we will be eating novelties and postcards.
Does the right hon. Gentleman have any comfort for those in hard-pressed industrial areas who want unemployment taken into account in standard spending assessments and want the safety net retained rather than phased out because of the effect on services in the real world where this rate matters, not the postcard world of those in Eastbourne and elsewhere who have praised the Government this afternoon?

Mr. Patten: Mr. Troop is one of my constituents, although not one whose views are shared by the Bath Association of Retailers or the Bath chamber of commerce. I am sure that, in the light of what he apparently said on radio, he will be delighted by the fact that manufacturing industry outside inner London will pay less in rates than under the old system. That seems to me to be precisely the sort of issue that Mr. Troop—who, incidentally, is in retailing—would very much welcome.
On the adjustments that we have made to SSAs, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is pleased that we have listened to the representations that we received from Sheffield about heavy goods vehicles and have taken them into account in the adjustments.
As for support for local authorities, the most important figure is the AEF figure, which I have given several times—a 12·8 per cent. increase. The hon. Gentleman overlooks the scale of the specific grants and special grants that we are paying. Overall, the increase in grants is 7·65 per cent. I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to blazon that argument, because it does not appear to suit his own. What the hon. Gentleman conveniently ignores in the other figures that he gave is the contribution that we make to community charge payers through the transitional relief scheme, community charge benefits and so on.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point about spending on education, I draw his attention to a letter this morning in The Independent by the director of the South Bank polytechnic, pointing out the inspectorate's work in Labour boroughs which spend a great deal of money on education but which were badly letting down their pupils in the past. Thank heavens we are starting to get away from that.

Mr. Speaker: I have been pleased to be able to call every hon. Member who wished to put a question to the Secretary of State because today there have been exceptional circumstances. I now understand that it is not necessary for me to call on the Government Front Bench to move motion No. 2 on the Order Paper. I would not wish my actions this afternoon to be taken as a precedent.


I wish that it were always possible to call all hon. Members who wish to put questions, as I was able to do today. I think that the Secretary of State now deserves a cup of tea.

Points of Order

Mr. Barry Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your help and assistance. It is noticeable that for two hours and one minute the Secretary of State for the Environment stood at the Dispatch Box, making a long complex statement and then fielding at length many questions from right hon. and hon. Members on the important matter of the poll tax. May I ask you, Sir, to help right hon. and hon. Members from Wales.
The Secretary of State for Wales has run away from the House. He has made no statement in the House, but in Cardiff he made a complex one. He has not submitted himself to any questioning and has treated Welsh Members with discourtesy. We ask whether you can bring him to the House to answer questions on an important matter. The people of Wales dislike the poll tax and have rejected it in all elections. The Secretary of State for Wales has run away. He has chickened out. He has not seen fit to show that he takes the House seriously.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member knows that that is not within my competence, but I am sure that what he said was heard by the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Today's Order Paper contains a motion tabled by the Leader of the House—
That this House do meet on Thursday 1st November at half-past Nine o'clock.
That motion is for prorogation. I seek information about parliamentary questions. I have asked two questions, requesting information about the proposed west end development scheme in Bradford. The answer—
it is not our practice, for reasons of commercial confidentiality, to reveal details of development proposals"—
could be interpreted by the Table Office as a blocking answer. Will you confirm, Mr. Speaker, that after prorogation when parliamentary business falls, blocking answers also fall? This means that questions about matters of great concern to the people of Bradford can be tabled after 7 November.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that after prorogation questions can be tabled afresh.

Mr. Dick Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the pleasantries that have been exchanged in the House today in relation to Scotland, may I have some clarification from you about your attitude when a statement is made which could have an effect on all the nations of the United Kingdom? Will you take the view that Scottish Question Time is a uniquely Scottish occasion and that English Back-Bench Tory Members should not transgress it, or will you take the view that this is a United Kingdom Parliament and that if Members keep within order they are entitled to put their questions to any Secretary of State who makes a statement from the Dispatch Box?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member knows the answer without asking the question. He well knows, because I regularly say it, that this is a United Kingdom Parliament. That is why he was called today. When he spoke to me at the Chair, I explained to him that this statement had no direct relevance to Scotland but that I would call him at the end. I did that. The hon. Member then began to ask a


question about Scotland, and it was on that point that I pulled him up. This is indeed a United Kingdom Parliament, and I shall continue to act as I have always done in treating all Members equally and fairly.

Vagrancy Acts (Repeals and Amendment)

Mrs. Llin Golding: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish the crime of vagrancy and to repeal and amend certain statutory provisions in respect of homeless persons; and for other purposes.
The purpose of the Bill is to abolish the Vagrancy Act 1824, which was introduced to deal with specific problems of vagrancy following the Napoleonic wars. We do not need this vagrancy law. It can give a criminal record to homeless people, making it even more difficult for them to climb literally out of the gutter.
The Act makes it a crime to sleep on the street and to beg. It makes it a crime to be homeless or destitute. Until recently, the Vagrancy Act had hardly been used and, indeed, it was abolished in Scotland by the Civil Government (Scotland) Act 1982. In recent years, however, as the number of homeless persons has increased, prosecutions under the Act have started to show a dramatic increase. In 1988, in England and Wales, some 573 people were prosecuted under the Vagrancy Act. In 1989 there were 1,396 prosecutions, according to a survey of only four central London magistrates courts. What happened to those people? In most cases, they were fined if they had any money on them, or imprisoned overnight if they did not, and then they went back out on to the streets, still homeless, still without money, but now with a criminal record. What a waste of police and court time.
All hon. Members know that the number of people, particularly young people, sleeping in shop doorways, under bridges, in cardboard boxes, in graveyards or in any rough shelter they can find has increased dramatically. There are now sleeping on our streets mentally disturbed people discharged from our mental hospitals without support, youngsters barred from making claims under our social security system, people who have left home because of the strains on family life, youngsters who leave home as the answer to abuse and young people who leave care without proper support—many people with a variety of reasons who are vulnerable not only because of their background or age but because they are homeless and penniless, and, because of that, they can acquire a criminal record.
Consider the case of a youngster who leaves home—perhaps no longer able to cope because of the many strains of teenage life. He or she may arrive in London frightened, with little money and nowhere to go, bewildered and lost in the vastness of the city, cold, hungry and not knowing what to do. Such youngsters can turn to petty crime or they can beg. They can sleep on the street or they can break into an unoccupied house for shelter. Whichever choice they make, they are criminals. In having nowhere to sleep but the streets, in being desperately thirsty and hungry and in asking a passer-by for a few shillings, a youngster commits a criminal act and, if caught, can acquire a criminal record, which will put a black mark against any future job opportunities. Where is the sense in that?
Homelessness and being without money are not criminal problems. They are problems with which the House should deal. It is our failing and our lack of a sense of priority that punish the poor and defenceless in our society.
Some people say that the repeal of the Vagrancy Act would encourage people to sleep rough. Have those people ever tried sleeping rough on the streets of our big towns, night after night, in all weathers, alone and vulnerable? I have heard it said that the repeal of the Act would lead to intimidation by beggars and that the police would have no control over that. But alternative laws already exist to cover intimidation. Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 covers the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour. The obstruction of free passage of the highway is covered by the Highways Act 1980. Making an unwarranted demand with menaces is covered by section 14 of the Theft Act 1968.
It is being said that unscrupulous people are behaving like latter-day Fagins, using youngsters to beg, and that section 3 of the Vagrancy Act makes it an offence to cause or procure or encourage a child to beg. But that, too, is an offence under section 4 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.
Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act states:
Every person wandering abroad and lodging in any barn or outhouse, or in any deserted or unoccupied building and not giving a good account of himself"—
where an unlawful purpose is involved—
shall be deemed a rogue and a vagabond
and that
It shall be lawful for any justice of the peace to commit such offender for any time not exceeding three calendar months.
But being on enclosed premises for an unlawful purpose is already covered by section 7 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. When the homeless and beggars commit real crimes they can be charged with real offences.
In February this year, the Minister of State, Home Office wrote to me:
It is important to stress, however, that a person may not be prosecuted for sleeping rough unless he or she has previously been directed to a reasonably accessible place of shelter and failed to apply for, or…refused accommodation there; or he or she persistently wanders abroad notwithstanding that a place of shelter is reasonably accessible".
The Government admit that the lack of sufficient accommodation available for the homeless is a real problem. It should not be the job of our overworked police force to check that beds are available or that accommodation has been refused. It should not be for our

over-full courts to make a judgment on whether homeless people applied or did not apply to get into a hostel before declaring them rogues and vagabonds.
The Minister of State also wrote that sleeping rough or begging are not arrestable offences under section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. If that is the Government's position, why do we need to retain the Vagrancy Act, which clearly states:
Every person wandering abroad, or placing himself or herself in any public place, street, highway, court or passage, to beg or gather alms shall be deemed an idle and disorderly person within the true intent and meaning of this Act; and it shall be lawful for any justice of the peace to commit each offender for any time not exceeding one calendar month.
The Secretary of State cannot have it both ways. Either the Vagrancy Act is being used to make criminals of homeless and hungry people or it is not. If it is not in use, it should be repealed. If it is being used, the Home Secretary should say quite clearly that the Government consider that it is a criminal offence to be homeless and hungry.
My hon. Friends and I believe that homelessness is a great social problem which only far-reaching policy initiatives can address. Sleeping out and begging are often the result of homlessness. It ought not to be the role of the criminal law to punish those most vulnerable groups in society who have been reduced to a life on the streets.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. John P. Smith, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. Peter Archer, Miss Kate Hoey, Mr. Dennis Turner, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Tom Cox, Sir Charles Irving, Mr. Barry Sheerman, Mr. Robin Squire and Mr. Dave Nellist.

VAGRANCY ACTS (REPEALS AND AMENDMENT)

Mrs. Llin Golding accordingly presented a Bill to abolish the crime of vagrancy and to repeal and amend certain statutory provisions in respect of homeless persons; and for other purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill No. 211].

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That this House do meet on Thursday 1st November at half-past Nine o'clock.—[Sir Geoffrey Howe.]

Noise Abatement and the Environment

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier): I am sure that all hon. Members will welcome the opportunity to talk about a form of environmental pollution which, although it cannot be seen, has the capacity, if not controlled, to be an insidious, all-pervading cause of enormous stress.
I am sure that there is not one hon. Member who has not received heart-rending stories from constituents about the invasion of their lives by noise. Indeed, today's debate is most timely as there is no doubt that the profile of noise as a source of major nuisance has been raised over the past few months as a result of the culmination of several major Government initiatives.
First, the Environmental Protection Bill contains a number of improvements in environmental noise control. Secondly, the Government's recently published White Paper on the environment devotes a whole chapter to noise and explains what action is under way and what we plan for the future. Thirdly, the findings and recommendations of the independent noise review working party—set up by the Government at the beginning of this year to look at the adequacy of noise controls—have recently been published.
Let me explain in greater detail. The main aim of part III of the Environmental Protection Bill is to align the regime for dealing with statutory nuisances such as smells and dust with that of the more streamlined system that already exists for dealing with noise nuisance. We did not intend the Bill to be used as a tool to introduce fundamental changes to noise legislation, as we wanted to have the opportunity to consider fully what the noise review working party had to say on the many facets of noise in the environment. However, the opportunity has been taken to make a few worthwhile changes.
Firstly, the maximum penalty that can be incurred by industries, trades or businesses for breaching a nuisance abatement notice will rise from £2,000 to £20,000. Secondly, the definition of statutory nuisance has been widened to include noise that is prejudicial to health and not just a nuisance. Thirdly, the duty of a local authority to investigate complaints has been clarified. Existing legislation already gives local authorities a duty to cause their area to be inspected from time to time to detect any noise nuisance.
Of course, one would expect local authorities to take reasonable steps to investigate complaints made to them about noise and most authorities interpret the existing duty in that way. It has been suggested, however, that the wording of the existing duty is unduly obscure, and the noise review working party has recommended that action should be taken to clarify the duty on local authorities. The Bill therefore makes it clear that local authorities are not only under a duty to inspect their area from time to time to detect statutory nuisances but must take such steps as are reasonably practicable to investigate complaints.
I should now like to refer to the White Paper on the environment and the report of the noise review working party, both of which have just been published.

Sir Alan Glyn: Will the provisions apply to small airfields—a subject on which I

have written to the Minister—which give rise to real difficulties? In my constituency, for instance, the flight path to and from an airfield goes right over people's houses.

Mr. Trippier: If my hon. Friend will be patient, I will devote quite a substantial chunk of my speech to that problem.
The two factors to which I had referred before my hon. Friend's intervention are closely related and it may be useful if I explain first the background to the setting up of the noise review working party. The Government announced last December that the review was to take place and last February we announced that it would be taken forward by an independent working party chaired by Mr. James Batho, one-time secretary of the Noise Advisory Council.
The chairman was asked to complete the review in sufficient time so that the recommendations could, as far as practicable, be taken into account by the Government when drafting the White Paper. The working party included representatives of local authorities, research establishments and people with special knowledge of the problems of environmental noise. The Government are most grateful for all the time and hard work that the chairman and the working party members put into that report. At this point, I want to echo the chairman's appreciation of the late Charlie Bayne, who was the secretary to the working party. He tragically died a few days after the group's final meeting. He was held in high regard for his tenacity and application by members of the working party and his colleagues in the Department. I am sure that all hon. Members would want to join me in expressing sympathy to Mr. Bayne's family.
The breadth of expertise and experience represented has resulted in a report that will play a most important part in influencing future development in noise policy. Indeed the noise section of the White Paper owes much to the emerging deliberation of the working party as its work progressed.
Having set the scene, I should now like to talk about existing and proposed new measures for dealing with noise. These comprise the reduction of noise at source; reducing exposure to noise; and the controlling of noise.
Much is being done to reduce noise at source. For example, the Government are constantly seeking ways of reducing noise from road vehicles. Tighter standards have reduced noise levels considerably over the past 10 years and it should be technically possible to reduce noise levels further for both cars and lorries. The Government are pressing for such significant reductions to be introduced across the EEC. The United Kingdom also took a leading role in new tighter EC standards for motor cycles and will follow that with new regulations to control the quality of silencers on the market.
It is important to make sure that vehicles continue to meet noise standards throughout their lifetime. It is already an offence to alter a silencer to make it louder, or to use a vehicle in a way that creates excessive noise. The Government are now examining the practicalities of introducing metered noise testing as part of the annual test and when inspecting vehicles at the road side.

Sir Philip Goodhart: In the coming Session it is expected that at least two Bills will deal with


traffic and road legislation. Is it possible that those Bills will contain clauses that will tighten controls, particularly on noisy motor cycles?

Mr. Trippier: It may not be necessary to introduce the regime to which I referred in primary legislation. It may simply be necessary to introduce it by regulation. It may also come about as a result of a European directive. The concern that I expressed, which is clearly shared by my hon. Friend, will be addressed one way or the other.

Mr. Robert Adley: As the author of the Motorcycle Noise Act 1987, I am disappointed that my hon. Friend the Minister did not give full credit to that splendid piece of private Member's legislation.
My hon. Friend will remember, painfully perhaps, as will the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) that I bored the Standing Committee on the Environmental Protection Bill with endless attempts to get aircraft and vehicle noise and pollution into that Bill, but I failed. I did not detect much enthusiasm for my amendments among the Opposition Members any more than there was enthusiasm on the Government's part.
With regard to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart), is my hon. Friend the Minister saying that the Government will not contemplate legislating unless and until there is some Community agreement? Some of us believe that that might take a long time.

Mr. Trippier: I am not saying anything of the sort. My hon. Friend would be wrong to give the House the impression that he was in any way boring in Standing Committee. I clearly remember his superb speeches on this subject. Indeed, I could never forget them. It would be impossible to do that because the principal point that my hon. Friend was seeking to make was repeated on so many occasions. However, we hugely enjoyed the experience.
I do not believe that we have to wait for European legislation. I am simply saying that we may not require primary legislation. The problem could be tackled by regulation. However, we are determined to address the problem.
With regard to aircraft noise, modern jets are much quieter than their earlier counterparts and replacement of older jets by the latest models will continue to bring benefits. Older aircraft that fail to meet current noise requirements are now banned. Moreover, as from 1 November, the Government, together with other European countries, will ban our national airlines from acquiring aircraft that fail the latest requirements.
While not in the same noise league as a jumbo jet, the use of microlight aircraft was generating complaints, but the introduction of controls by the Government since 1984 has resulted in a substantial drop in the number of complaints and those controls seem likely to form the basis of forthcoming international regulations.
With regard to the specific points made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Sir A. Glyn), we have given a clear commitment in the White Paper to review the powers with respect to small airfields.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Helicopters are extremely noisy. Surely this is the wrong time to consider building a new heliport in the City of London, which would disturb many people throughout

London, particularly west of the City, if helicopters, which are particularly noisy and annoying, were to fly to Heathrow hundreds of times a day.

Mr. Trippier: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the recommendation in the Batho report about helicopters, which the Government have said formally we shall seriously consider. I should obviously welcome any detailed advice or recommendations from my hon. Friend before we decide how to respond to the report.

Mr. Tom Cox: The comments made by the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) were interesting. He must realise that with talk of further extensions at Heathrow airport, even if aircraft noise levels are lower—something we all welcome—more aircraft will fly over residential areas such as my constituency. If that is not the responsibility of the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, it should he considered seriously by the Minister who is responsible for it.

Mr. Trippier: That would come under the responsibility of the Department of the Environment only in terms of the planning of any proposed extensions. The direct responsibility would belong to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: With regard to microlight aircraft, there seems to have been a spate of applications in the midlands, particularly in my constituency, for landing strips, which I suppose could be called airfields, to allow microlights to take off and land. Those applications have been made in country areas and areas of great natural beauty. From the remarks made earlier by my hon. Friend the Minister, do I understand it that detailed guidance from the Department of the Environment on the attitudes that should be taken by planning authorities when deciding whether to grant those applications must wait upon international regulations, or does the DOE intend to give earlier guidance to local authorities—which are at sixes and sevens about the matter—so that there can be greater certainty for applicants and objectors?

Mr. Trippier: Two issues are involved. First, the Department of the Environment was responsible for a code of practice that can be used as guidance, but not in terms of planning applications, which would have to be considered initially by the planning authorities. However, those could certainly come to Ministers on appeal and particularly to the Secretary of State. On the latter point, I should have to reserve comment because of the semi-judicial role in those matters of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The code of practice, which I am told has been received and respected internationally, is an enormous guide and a dramatic step forward. I undertake to send a copy of it to my hon. Friend tomorrow.
I now refer to more down-to-earth noises, as it were. There has been quite a bit of concern expressed about noise from alarms. I wish to make it quite clear that the Government believe that burglar alarms and car alarms should perform better. Although there is a code of practice relating to burglar alarms, it is only advisory.
The Government propose to introduce mandatory controls to require a 20-minute cut-off. Car alarms a re permitted to sound for five minutes, but often continue for longer and are prone to go off automatically. We are examining what can be done to improve matters.
It is clearly desirable that, as far as possible, noise and people should be kept apart, and clearly the planning system has an important role to play. Planners need to consider the potential noise problems of locating factories, roads, airports and so on near existing houses and of locating new houses near existing noise sources. Government advice to planners on traffic, aircraft and industrial noise already exists but it is to be updated and extended to take account of a wider range of noise sources.
Of course, in a densely populated country such as ours it is not always possible to build, say, a new road without increasing noise levels to those already living in the area. However, the Government are especially concerned to see that all reasonable measures are taken when designing a new road to mitigate the impact on those living nearby.
In addition, noise insulation is available where noise levels remain high, as is compensation for depreciation in the value of houses caused by the use of the new road. The Government also recognise that the proposed widening of existing motorway routes could cause difficulties from increasing noise for those living nearby. As well as seeking design solutions where practical, it has been decided to assess eligibility for insulation as though a new road were being provided. That reflects the sentiment of the noise review working party.

Mr. Roy Beggs: I trust that, when the legislation is introduced, it will apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree that, when a new road is being built through a residential area, an assessment of noise levels should be made before work is undertaken so that there is no difficulty on the part of owner-occupiers in establishing their entitlement to compensation or a grant for insulation?

Mr. Trippier: I think that I am right in saying that in the abbreviated version of the White Paper, which has only recently been published, there is a photograph of such an investigation taking place and the monitoring of noise levels in an area that is to be considered—I choose my words very carefully—as a new road development. On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I should have thought—again I choose my words carefully—that any forthcoming legislation would apply throughout the United Kingdom.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: It is the constituency experience of many hon. Members that in modern schools, rather than older schools, the noise level is so absurd that it is impossible for a teacher to hear himself or herself teach in some of the new classrooms, even if a relatively small amount of noise is being made next door. Do the Government consider that to be a problem? If so, are they prepared to issue any regulations to try to improve the situation?

Mr. Trippier: I am pleased to say that the provisions to which I referred would be necessary and should be extended not only to schools but to hospitals.
Similarly, much can be done to reduce the impact of aircraft noise. One can provide noise insulation for those worst affected. There is a statutory requirement for the principal London airports to provide sound insulation to

surrounding homes within a specified boundary—equivalent to the provision for roads. Elsewhere, insulation is discretionary, but all the major airports run similar insulation schemes.
Other measures include establishing noise preferential routes so that aircraft fly over the minimum number of people on take-off, and encouraging quiet landing procedures.
Before leaving aircraft noise, I should like to say a few words about military flying, as it has been the subject of considerable debate during the passage of the Environmental Protection Bill. Military flying, one has to accept, is intrinsically noisy. Pilots have to be trained to fly at low levels because that is what they need to do in operations. We can never be sure when our pilots will be called on to exercise those demanding skills—as the current situation in the middle east has shown—so constant practice is necessary. Simulators are used as much as possible, but, at present, no simulator provides a complete substitute for real flying.
Ways of reducing noise emissions are kept under review, but military aircraft are exceptional and there is no early prospect of transferring quiet engine technology into the military sphere. Nevertheless, the Government are very conscious of the need to do all that they can to reduce the environmental impact of military flying. The amount of flying is kept to a minimum and will continue to be reviewed as the options for change in the light of developments in eastern Europe are worked out. The heights and speeds flown in in training are controlled, and inhabited areas are avoided as far as possible so as to reduce the impact on people on the ground.
Similarly, noise around military airfields is kept as low as possible by prescribing flying circuits to avoid local centres of population and by ensuring that the ground running of engines is carried out under cover, in daylight hours and in the centre of airfields whenever possible. Not all disturbance can be avoided. For example, flightpaths are largely dictated by the fixed alignment of runways, but sound insulation grants are available for the occupants of homes near airfields that meet certain qualifying criteria. Also, offers to purchase are made to those worst affected.

Mr. Adley: I thank the Minister for giving way again. He is always the most courteous and helpful of Ministers. I apologise for interrupting him again.
Has it occurred to him—I am sure that it has—that most of the problems that he has discussed so far emanate from transport, the solution to which and the handling of which are the responsibility of the Department of Transport? Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the reasons why many of us have felt over the years that we have never successfully tackled the problems is that there is a dichotomy between the Department of Transport's responsibility as sponsoring the noisy transport and its apparent responsibility for coping with the problems that it raises? Will my hon. Friend consider designated areas in particular? At the moment, only the main London airports are designated airports. When one has problems anywhere else in the country, one writes to the airport concerned. If it replies, one will be lucky, but it will not do anything. It refers one to the local authority, which refers one to the Civil Aviation Authority, which refers one back to the operating airport. It is most unsatisfactory. Will my hon.


Friend look at the legislation and try to liaise better with the Department of Transport to see whether we could have action on the problem? Nothing ever happens.

Mr. Trippier: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. I shall look at the matter. I must assure him that liaison between my Department and the Department of Transport has never been better. It would be difficult to get a razor blade between the two Departments. There is clear evidence of that in the White Paper.
As a result of the many appeals that my hon. Friend made to me in Committee when we considered the Environmental Protection Bill, he will have been the first to welcome the fact that the Batho committee examined aircraft noise. If I may pay my hon. Friend a personal tribute, he was consistent, assiduous and tenacious in asking for that review committee to study the matter.

Mr. Dalyell: I am not a Fife Member, but in the area of RAF Leuchars there are complaints that, if only the RAF would let the people round about know when terrain-following-equipment flying was likely to take place, life would be that much easier. My next point is blunt and anecdotal. There are complaints from civil pilots that they are not as well informed as they might be about military flying. For regular routes, that is a serious matter. I do not want to be alarmist, but there is a real problem.

Mr. Trippier: All that I can do is give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that I shall draw what he has said to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
Let me return from air to surface transport. I know that much concern has been expressed about the potential noise nuisance from possible new railway lines. In response, the Government announced last March the setting up of a committee to recommend a national noise insulation standard for new railway lines. Its remit is to recommend to the Government a standard that relates equitably to the standards set by regulations for new highways.
Sound insulation can and should play a vital role in the tackling of noise within buildings, and in tackling neighbourhood noise in general. Without adequate sound insulation in walls and floors, the transmission of noise between dwellings can lead to serious nuisance, and, in some extreme cases, can affect the health of the occupants. Where sound insulation is especially inadequate, nuisance can be caused even if the activities of the people causing the noise are not unreasonable.
In recognition of that potential problem, the building regulations for England and Wales impose sound insulation requirements on the design and construction of new homes. The Government are currently reviewing those requirements in the light of the responses to a consultation document that was issued in June.
The most significant likely change is the extension of the sound insulation requirements to cover flat conversions. That reflects the concern expressed by the noise review working party. In addition to that major change, the Government propose to improve the technical guidance issued in support of the regulations.
The Control of Pollution Act 1974 gives local authorities powers to set up noise abatement zones. They provide for local authorities to control noise levels in mixed residential and industrial or commercial areas. Their main aim is to control the creeping increase in noise

levels resulting from many noise sources that individually do not amount to a nuisance. The Government will be looking into possible ways to simplify the procedures to encourage authorities to use them more.
Where there are local problems—such as neighbourhood noise—the Government believe that a co-operative approach is needed. So we are sponsoring a pilot "quiet neighbourhood" scheme. The key to success will be encouraging residents of an area to co-operate in drawing up a code of conduct and agreeing on reasonable behaviour, perhaps with time restrictions on noisy activities.

Mr. Robin Squire: Let us imagine that, at some time in the near future, my hon. Friend the Minister extends royal Lancastrian hospitality to me and invites me up to his constituency. Let us further suppose that he gets a little excited during the evening, the music becomes rather loud and eventually—and unusually—his neighbours complain.

Mr. John Carlisle: He has not got any neighbours.

Mr. Squire: He may not have any after I have been there.
Let us suppose that, despite several entreaties, my hon. Friend does not turn the noise down. As he knows, there is nothing that the police can do, and little—beyond monitoring—that the environmental health officer can do. If, by contrast, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—who is even more charming—were to invite me to his stately pad and—unusually—we created an excessive din, the Scottish police would have direct responsibility and could take immediate action. In his discussions with the relevant Minister at the Home Office, will my hon. Friend please consider carefully before introducing legislation? Will he find out whether England and Wales can enjoy the protection and the guarantee of urgent action that has already been granted in Scotland?

Mr. Trippier: I give my hon. Friend that assurance. Indeed, I go further and say that there is a recommendation about that in the Batho report. The Government have already undertaken to examine the matter carefully, and I think that we shall. I am aware of the problem, because constituents have drawn it to my attention in my surgeries.

Mr. Beggs: In my constituency, most of the complaints about noise concern people who operate ghetto blasters until all hours of the morning. As we are spending so much time and thought on the need to reduce the noise from vehicles, aircraft and so on, is not it time that we put some control on the amount of noise that can be emitted from wirelesses, record players and the like?

Mr. Trippier: I am very sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's point; it is an extension of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire). If we are to respond positively to the Batho report, we need to concentrate on that.
We all need to be reminded from time to time to consider the amount of noise that we make. The Government give financial support to a number of bodies concerned with noise prevention. For example, the National Society for Clean Air produces teaching packs on noise for use in schools, thus encouraging an awareness of


noise from an early age. Making a new generation conscious of the effects of noise could have a directly beneficial effect in years to come.
Of course, noise policy needs to be underpinned by research, and the Government carry out, or sponsor, a great deal. Trends in noise levels, the development of quieter road surface materials and investigation of low-frequency noise are just a few of the aspects being examined.
We all recognise that a great deal of the noise around us is the result of what most people would regard as legitimate activities.

Mr. Dalyell: We need to say more in the House about the trends of noise. When I first came here, we could normally hear a pin drop during Prime Minister's Question Time. However, we now get a bawling match every Tuesday and Thursday. Before we become too self-satisfied, perhaps we should register—without being priggish about it—that we do not set a great example.

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman has absolutely ruined the punch line of my speech, and I shall never forgive him for that as long as I draw breath. Someone had to say that we do not exactly set a superb example to the rest of the nation; I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman got in first.
The examples that I was—

Mr. Toby Jessel: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Trippier: Oh, dear God.

Mr. Jessel: This is a serious matter. My hon. Friend, in reply to an intervention, has referred extensively to neighbourhood noise and amplified music. However, the Batho report shows that there are almost as many complaints about noise from dogs, which he has not mentioned at all. Dogs should receive far more attention in the House.

Mr. Trippier: I hoped that I should not even have to mention dogs today. I thought that I had been relieved of that enormous responsibility, but once again I have been proved wrong.
I am sympathetic, but it will be extremely difficult to frame the legislation whereby we clamp or clam up dogs in some way. We shall attempt to undertake the exercise; that is as much as I can say at this stage.

Mr. John Carlisle: This is my first and last intervention, because I know that my hon. Friend wants to finish, but it should go on the record that the problem in Luton is not dogs but cockerels. A practice is creeping into my constituency: cockerels are kept in urban areas, causing the utmost nuisance to residents when they start singing—as they do—between 4 and 5 o'clock in the morning. If my hon. Friend is framing legislation, will he please include cockerels?

Mr. Trippier: The way of tackling the problem suggested by my hon. Friend stretches my credulity to the utmost. If he comes up with a suggestion that he would like to develop into a crusade, however, I have no doubt that the nation will be eternally grateful to him. It could play a significant part in his seeking re-election.

Mr. Barry Field: I wonder whether I can briefly be of technical assistance to the Minister. The matter was debated on Radio 4 many months ago. If its perch is moved a little higher, the cockerel cannot throw its head in the air and make that alarming noise that wakes everyone up.

Mr. Trippier: From the strength and fervour of the earlier intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), it seems that there is probably not a perch high enough to conquer the problem with which he seeks to deal.
I insist on getting through another page before allowing another intervention. The examples that I was giving are lorries delivering goods to the local supermarket; the aeroplane taking us on holidays or taking a business man to an important meeting; and the quarry that provides raw materials to construct the very buildings in which we live and work.
While we must make every effort to ensure that such activities are carried out as quietly as possible, I suspect that the majority of people will have a greater readiness to tolerate a degree of noise if at least something positive results. For example, it may be impossible to carry out a manufacturing process without making some noise, but to a small town a factory may well represent many jobs and be an important factor in the local economy. On the other hand, it is surely the case that people will be far less tolerant of what they perceive as wholly unnecessary and inconsiderate noise. It is the very fact that much noise is considered as unnecessary that makes it more stressful to others.
Examples of that easily spring to mind, some of which have been mentioned. They include the unnecessary volume issuing from hi-fi equipment; the inconsiderate viewing of television late at night with the volume too high; the do-it-yourself enthusiast who carries out noisy work during unsocial hours, thus depriving his neighbour of much-needed sleep for the heavy day ahead; and the inconsiderate motorist who wakes up his neighbours in the morning. We all accept that some people have to get into work very early—but is it necessary to rev the engine as if one were in the pits at Brands Hatch?
While the Government's commitment to tackle all forms of noise remains undiminished—I have given that undertaking several times in response to interventions—Government action can do only so much. Action by individuals and community groups—particularly on neighbourhood noise—is also needed to help to cure many of the current problems through greater consideration for neighbours. I hope that as the matter is debated in the House, which does not set a superb example to the rest of the nation, all hon. Members will recognise that every individual in the land has a responsibility to ensure that unnecessary noise is avoided.

Ms. Joan Walley: I am sorry that the Minister will not be here for the final paragraph of my speech. I should tell the House that he has already warned me that he will not be here for the end of my speech, for reasons that I fully accept. If he had stayed, he would have heard me, too, refer to the problems of noise from dogs and noise in this very House.
In a week in which environmental issues have dominated the business of the House, it is right that the


final debate of the Session should be yet another environmental debate, this time on noise. Noise can be a problem, whether it be neighbourhood noise, noisy neighbours, loud music, parties, barking dogs, burglar alarms, car radios—the list is endless. It may be noise from traffic. Noise from unloaded heavy goods vehicles and lorries clattering over badly maintained roads is particularly had. It may be aircraft noise, unacceptably high levels of noise at work, or noise tolerated by those of us who live near to factories with machinery that constantly drones on through the night without respite. Often there is no adequate legislation to control such noise. We have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about voice pollution—perhaps the latest version of noise to make the headlines. It includes persistent background noise in open-plan offices where the next person may talk so loudly on the telephone, or type so loudly—they cannot help that—that one cannot concentrate or hear oneself think.
The standards of sound insulation in schools and hospitals have been referred to. Sometimes everyone can hear what everyone else is doing. Background noise, particularly at television and radio stations, can also be a problem. I have had representations from the staff who operate the BBC local radio service in Stoke-on-Trent.
All those different types of noise need abating, and abating quickly. People desperately need more peace and quiet. The anti-social actions of those whose noise causes health hazards—for health hazards they are—to others cannot be tolerated. The Government must deal with noise no differently from the way in which they deal with other forms of nuisance and environmental pollution. That is why the Government's failure to integrate fully noise abatement of all types into the Environmental Protection Bill is inexcusable. As we heard from the Minister, the Bill brings some welcome improvements. Local authorities' basic duty to investigate noise complaints has been clarified and we welcome that. We also welcome the increase in fines from £2,000 to £20,000, to which the Minister referred. Of course, that is welcome. But a Government who really cared about environmental protection would not have stood for a half-hearted measure on noise. They would have had the foresight to get their working party on noise off the ground soon enough to make sure that the recently published findings of the Batho noise review working party were available in good time to be integrated fully into the only piece of environmental legislation that we are likely to have this side of a general election.
None the less, we welcome the proposals in the Batho report. Despite what we heard from the Minister about the White Paper, the report is much firmer in tone and more detailed in its proposals for improving noise control than the White Paper on the environment. Will the Minister or the Under-Secretary who replies say precisely what resources will be available to local authorities to enable them to implement in full the Batho recommendations?
We warmly welcome the proposal that local authorities should take all reasonable steps to investigate complaints about neighbourhood noise. Such noise is intolerable. Certainly councils should keep offices open to deal with noise complaints at weekends and in the evenings. This afternoon the Secretary of State made an announcement about the new formula for the standard spending assessment. We heard how little he has taken into account basic environmental services. Therefore, I wonder how

local councils will find the money to employ the environmental health officers to provide a service at weekends and in the evenings.
There is the prospect of further capping, whether we know the rules in advance or not and whether, as the Secretary of State suggested, councils could in effect volunteer for capping. None of what we heard explained where the money would come from to pay for the improvements. It seems that the extra duties will not be self-financing, so where does that leave noise in the priority rating for the formula used to arrive at the SSA for a local authority and consequently the amount of expenditure that it can afford?

Mr. John Carlisle: Perhaps the hon. Lady is a little pessimistic about the new legislation outlined by the Minister. She will be aware that, like her, I represent an urban constituency with exactly the same problems. Hopefully, when fines and penalties are imposed on offenders the terrible problems will begin to be corrected. Therefore, the number of officers required—I agree that at present it is considerable—by definition will fall as noise is dealt with. It is up to everyone to ensure that the legislation works and that fines discourage people from having noisy parties.

Ms. Walley: That was a useful intervention. It showed that we must take into account long term as well as short term considerations. However, it is no good having plans to deal with the problem in the long term when some money has been generated if there is no way of dealing with the problem in the short term. Does the Under-Secretary have any idea of the costs and the work involved in dealing with noise from weekend parties, which is the main source of complaints? In case he does not know, I shall tell him what is involved. A proper service must take full account of the findings of the detailed report of the London strategic policy unit on the operation of weekend noise services. That report found that there were wide variations between local authorities. The hon. Gentleman's intervention suggests that that must be taken into account. We do not want differing noise standards; we want standard implementation. It is important that the Under-Secretary is aware of the code of practice that environmental health officers helped to draw up in 1988.
If a weekend service is to be provided, it is necessary to train people to do the job, which costs money. Officers must often work in pairs for safety reasons. The complainant must be interviewed and the procedure must be followed up by issuing a warning letter. If there is a second incident, that must be followed up by a statutory notice, again involving costs. If there is a third incident, a prosecution notice must be issued. If a proper weekend service were provided, it could cost as much as £60,000 to £65,000 a year on top of all the other environmental health costs of local authorities.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Does the hon. Lady agree that if a party is taking place, no matter how many environmental health officers there are, they do not have the power to end it? Does she agree that it is not just a question of the number of officers but that the matter goes well beyond that?

Ms. Walley: The hon. Lady is right and she should make those representations to the Under-Secretary of State. If there is a noisy party, it does not matter how many


officers there are if none is on the end of an emergency telephone line at 5 am or midnight on a Friday or a Saturday night to deal with the complaint then and to follow it up subsequently. My point is that after dealing with the initial complaint there is a tremendous amount of follow-up work. As hon. Members will be aware, it is not part of the normal contract of an environmental health officer to work extra hours at the weekend or to work night shifts on Friday and Saturday nights. Immediately we are talking about contractual overtime commitments and overtime pay for staff.
Many late-night parties occur in inner-city estates which have a distinct shortage of amenity and community facilities. Does the Under-Secretary of State agree that there should be sound-proofed facilities to provide suitable venues for late-night parties? I see him smiling, but if more community facilities were provided it would meet the needs of people to find a place to go for social entertainment.
Earlier in the debate there was a useful intervention about the different practices in Scotland. Under Scottish legislation equipment causing the noise offence can be confiscated. I should welcome it if the Government took on board the proposals in our alternative White Paper which make provision for that.
How will the Government implement the working party's recommendations on noise abatement zones so that they can be used far more effectively? If the proposed neighbourhood watch scheme pilot project is a success—I noted that the Minister said that there would be only one—are there proposals for a comprehensive system throughout the country or are we to see a wide variation in standards? Which areas has the Under-Secretary of State chosen for the pilot project?
Clearly, the proposals to revise the planning and noise circular 10/73 and to amend the related legislation are given a high priority in the Batho report and could make a big difference. Precisely when will the Minister introduce them? When he considers the changes, will he take into account not only the paper prepared by the Building Research Establishment, but the commendable report produced by Labour-controlled Norwich city council's environmental health department which is entitled "Guidance Notes on the Sound Insulation of Party Walls and Party Floors in Converted Dwellings"? It is one of many examples of good practice from Labour-controlled councils.
Norwich is concerned about the growing problems of noise disturbance to neighbouring property which frequently arise when terraced or semi-detached dwellings are subdivided. I am well aware of the council's anxiety because it mentioned that to me in great detail when I visited the city earlier this year. Sound sound insulation should be fully incorporated in planning conditions. Does the Minister agree that he should now take urgent steps to introduce better standards of home insulation sooner rather than later?
Despite what the Minister has said about steps to deal with noise pollution caused by transportation, the Government's credibility is exhausted. There is a complete lack of a comprehensive transport policy, which is typical of the Government's ad hoc approach to policy making. Energy saving automatically includes noise reduction

implications. All the threads need to be pulled together before noise pollution can be satisfactorily tackled. It is all very well for the Minister to say that one could not get a razor blade between him and the Secretary of State for Transport, but how far have the Government gone to put across these tighter standards on noise to the Department of Transport? Does the Minister intend to redefine "premises" under section 105(1) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 to include the highway? Noise from traffic is estimated to be the most widespread source of noise nuisance. It must be tackled by developing quieter vehicles, road and traffic management, comprehensive planning and measures to compensate those who are adversely affected. Obviously that has staffing implications.
There should be measures and compensation available to deal with excess noise. At present there is no coherent system covering the various modes of transport. There must be a common measure—a standard form of assessment. Compensation across the board should be made a fundamental right. There must be an extension of rights to cover problems caused by the increase in traffic creating noise nuisance. Existing regulations detail no grants or compensation if a road is changed into a major thoroughfare. When the Channel tunnel opens up the railways to increased freight traffic, especially at night, those who live near existing lines will not be entitled to help.
I understand that the Department of Transport has a working party looking at the implications of rail traffic on new lines, but existing lines are not included. Perhaps the Minister could liaise with his counterpart in the Department of Transport to ensure that full consideration is given to that problem.

Mr. Hugo Summerson: The hon. Lady has talked at some length about grants, compensation and so on. Has she costed them and, if so, what figure has she come up with?

Ms. Walley: The hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention to those issues which need to be addressed. At this stage it is important to consider the proposals and how far the "polluter pays" principle can be taken on board.
We welcome the Government's decision, albeit a delayed one, to include aircraft in the terms of reference of the noise working party. The Minister referred to his announcement halfway through proceedings on the Environmental Protection Bill to extend the working party's terms of reference. Nevertheless, not enough has been done to bring together the issues for which the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport have overlapping responsibility.
Aircraft noise, particularly for those who live near airfields, is an extreme nuisance. The Government still do not seem to have accepted the detail of aircraft noise pollution recommendations and I await with interest the provisions of the planning Bill which is expected to be announced in the Queen's Speech.
I could not agree more about the problems associated with undesignated airfields. Small airfields must be covered by proposals acting against nuisance. There is a particular problem with existing legislation in that ground activities are excluded from existing controls. Although


large airfields cope with the noise generated by ground testing and engine maintenance, the same is not true of small airfields.
As we have already heard, even in built-up areas there is an increasing problem with helicopters. Planning permission is not needed for some landing sites.

Mr. Jessel: The hon. Lady questioned the credibility of the Government regarding aircraft noise. I should remind her that the Government have done far more than any other Government to control aircraft noise, particularly at Heathrow. They stopped the fifth terminal at Heathrow, as well as the Heathrow to Gatwick helicopter link, and sharply curtailed the number of night flights at Heathrow. The previous Labour Government did practically nothing to control aircraft noise. I bet that the hon. Lady cannot think of anything positive that they did.

Ms. Walley: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but I have no intention of making this debate on noise a slanging match between hon. Members on either side of the Chamber.
It is most important for the Government to find ways to deal with the many issues related to helicopter noise as there is no doubt that greater controls are necessary. Reference was made to that in the Batho report, and the Government must tell us how they intend to introduce such controls.
I share the Minister's concern about the problems created by military aircraft, which I am sure we are all aware are increasing in many constituencies. We agree with the Government that the noise generated by military aircraft must be kept under review and that something should be done to abate at least some of it.
It is also important to consider the problem of noise in the workplace. I am aware that that topic was conveniently excluded from the review on the ground that separate controls exist. Why do not the Government recognise that they cannot deal with noise abatement effectively unless they act across the board? The Government have already extended the terms of reference of the working party to include aircraft noise and they should similarly extend them to include noise in the workplace. The Government should ensure that minimum criteria and standards are applied to the Departments of Employment and Trade and Industry. Those criteria should also have some bearing on the work of the Health and Safety Executive.
The plain truth is that noise regulations to protect the hearing of industrial workers are being ignored, despite the fact that 1·7 million people are exposed to noise levels that put them at risk of suffering permanent deafness. Why is it that only 0·5 per cent. of the notices served under health and safety at work regulations in 1988–89 concerned noise even though 1,515 sufferers won occupational disease awards because of deafness? The resources of the Health and Safety Executive are inadequate to deal with the problem. Does the Minister agree with the head of the noise at work unit at Sandy Brown Associates that the improved regulations which came into force in January have not had much effect? That was not the intention behind the European directive.
This is deaf awareness week, and, in this week of all weeks, does the Under-Secretary agree with trade unions, including the General Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union and the Transport and General Workers Union, that there should be a requirement on employers to

offer hearing tests to employees working in noisy surroundings? What advice is the Minister willing to give to ministerial colleagues on noise at source? Does he accept that there are no common procedures in the national health service for carrying out hearing tests? Has he any idea of the length of the waiting lists of those seeking treatment from an ear, nose and throat specialist?
The statistics show that, in 1975, there were 6,325 complaints about noise. In 1987, the figure had increased sharply to 59,132. No number of statistics can reveal the amount of suffering and irritation caused to those who must put up with unacceptable noise levels. The Government could have done far more to give wider powers and greater resources to enable local authorities and industry to reduce noise at source and to take enforcement action when needed. The Government should consider re-establishing the now disbanded Noise Advisory Council. In that context I pay tribute to the Batho working party for its report. That working party was set up in the wake of the Noise Advisory Council.
We need a national strategy capable of addressing all forms of noise, a strategy which will, by example, encourage people to be considerate about the noise they make.
We heard something earlier about barking dogs and I do not know whether the Government acknowledge that they still have a problem on their hands concerning dog registration—certainly some of us were expecting a vote about that tonight. The Government had better be warned because a survey conducted by the Building Research Establishment found that amplified music was the cause of 34 per cent. of complaints, but 33 per cent. of complaints related to dogs.
The Government should take note that we and the long-suffering public are every bit as determined to press for overdue action on noise abatement as we are to take necessary action against irresponsible dog owners.

Sir John Stanley: I welcome the fact that the Government have allocated a full day to this debate. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) that the Government have taken far more care and have followed a far more coherent and effective policy on noise than any of their predecessors.
I want to discuss railway noise in the light of the fact that the opening of the channel tunnel is less than three years away. I am not seeking to be hostile about the channel tunnel project, and I recognise the imperitive need for sensible rail use of that important national infrastructure. I am concerned, however, because the present legislation on compensation for noise and on noise insulation will, without doubt, be glaringly anomalous and unfair from the moment that the channel tunnel opens in 1993.
I can best illustrate my argument by referring to how the present legislation affects my constituency. Two existing railway lines in my constituency and one other proposed line will serve the channel tunnel. The southernmost line, the Tonbridge and Paddock Wood line, is one of the two designated rail routes that will lead to the channel tunnel. Once the tunnel is open and until the new line is built, that line will carry the major proportion of through international passenger and freight traffic. Once the tunnel opens, the tranquillity enjoyed by those people


who, unfortunately, live in close proximity to that track will be severely curtailed. Rail traffic noise will especially increase during sleeping hours.
On the freight traffic alone it is forecast that one international through freight train will pass Tonbridge station every 20 minutes between 10 pm and 6 am, seven days a week. Those trains will travel at 75 mph, will be approximately half a mile in length and will take half a minute to pass a given point. Those who live in the houses that back on to Tonbridge station face precious few night rail movements at present, but such is the forecast increase in noise levels.
Because legislation does not permit compensation or noise insulation to be obtained as a result of the intensification of an existing use without new work being carried out, as defined under the Land Compensation Act 1961, the people involved will have no compensation, even though the value of their homes will certainly depreciate hugely. The value of their homes will probably have depreciated already, but those people will have no statutory entitlement to noise insulation either.
A few miles to the north is the second designated route to the channel tunnel, the Maidstone East line. British Rail has already introduced a Bill—the British Railways (No. 3) Bill—into another place to give itself powers to construct a number of new passing loops along the line to accommodate channel tunnel traffic. One of the loops is in Borough Green in my constituency. It is a good illustration of the absurdity and unfairness of the present statutory position, because those houses immediately adjacent to the new loops that are to be constructed will be eligible for compensation and statutory noise insulation under the Land Compensation Act. However, a few yards further on, where the loop converges with the existing line, similarly placed houses suffering identical noise pollution will have no statutory entitlement either to compensation or noise insulation.
It will be appreciated that my constituency is totally criss-crossed by rail routes to the channel tunnel, between which there is also a major road. A few miles to the north of the second route is the path of the new rail link as designated under present proposals. For the purposes of the Land Compensation Act, that is new work, so any house along that section will be entitled to compensation and noise insulation as a result of noise pollution.
Therefore, within a section of very few miles, there is one proposed line along which everybody will get compensation for, and noise insulation against, noise disturbance if they are eligible, another line where only those living on a loop will be entitled to compensation and a third line where no one will receive anything. That is clearly absurd and, more importantly, it is seriously unfair and inequitable for a number of individuals.
No doubt the issue of precedents has already been raised with Ministers, both in the Department of the Environment and, more directly, in the Department of Transport, which is closely considering the issue. No doubt it will be said by those given responsibility for advising Ministers that if they concede the precedent of giving compensation and noise insulation for noise disturbance because of the intensification of existing use, they will have to grant them for every intensification of an existing use. I do not accept that argument and I earnestly

hope that Ministers will not either. Setting such a precedent would not lead to the granting of that concession in all circumstances, because this is a totally unique position.
There is only one channel tunnel and only two designated rail routes to it. To the best of my knowledge, a completely new huge source of rail traffic, with all its noise implications, has never been discharged on to existing rail routes that have been lightly used, particularly at night, in this country. Therefore, it is right to look at the circumstances and not be mesmerised by a specious argument about precedent.

Mr. Michael Irvine: I correct my right hon. Friend on one point. The circumstances are not unique. Exactly the same sort of thing happened in Ipswich when the Ipswich-Felixstowe railway line, originally just a passenger line to a seaside town, became the conduit for massive freight trains from Felixstowe to Ipswich. Those trains caused considerable upset, disturbance and unhappiness to a significant number of people living nearby. Therefore, I correct my right hon. Friend on that point but I sympathise with and support his argument.

Sir John Stanley: I thank my hon. Friend for giving me his local background. We cannot change the past but if, in future, there should be a similar scale of sudden noise disturbance from a new source of railway traffic onto an existing route, it would be entirely justified and equitable to adopt a similar policy to that which I hope will be used in relation to the existing lines which, it is proposed, channel tunnel traffic should use.
Ministers are exercised about the issue of precedent—I know of one direct precedent for giving both compensation and noise insulation for the intensification of an existing use. I know about it because I was the Minister responsible for putting it into effect. I was well assisted by my hon. Friend, then Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, now happily strategically placed as the Minister of State, Department of Transport. Exactly the same issue was raised when Tornado aircraft were deployed to RAF Leeming, which was an ongoing operational RAF air station being used for flying. There was no doubt that the deployment of Tornado aircraft would dramatically damage the environment and cause intrusive noise pollution in the immediate flight path of RAF Leeming. We decided that the right course was to pay compensation for the depreciation in value of, and buy out at their full market value, the houses that had effectively become valueless and, where necessary, give noise pollution protection.
I stress that a precedent has been created in the Ministry of Defence for dealing with precisely the same circumstances. My constituents face the railway equivalent of a Tornado deployment. It will create a reasonable parallel in railway terms when the channel tunnel opens to through passenger and freight traffic in 1993.
The merits of the case are that, for many years, certainly since the Land Compensation Act was passed, we have accepted that it is only fair and reasonable that when the value of someone's main asset, invariably the home, is seriously diminished because of a major piece of national infrastructure, the individual should not suffer a crippling loss because something needed by the nation as a whole has to be built. That is the position with the channel tunnel and of those people with homes alongside existing


designated rail routes. It cannot be right, in equity or morality, for the value of homes to be slashed by half or two thirds or possibly even made valueless because the nation wants the channel tunnel and wants it to be used for through rail traffic, as it should be.
A real moral obligation is involved and I am glad that the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, Department of Transport have recognised that, to the extent that they are considering whether compensation and noise insulation can be granted for the intensification of railway use created by the channel tunnel project. I hope that the Minister will draw my remarks to their attention and that, when the Government announce their conclusion at the end of the year, it will be a positive one, because that is the only conclusion that would be fair and reasonable in the circumstances for the relatively small number of people who are affected.

Mr. Paul Flynn: We have been treated to two speeches by Front-Bench spokesmen which were reasonable and constructive and which will lead to major improvements in legislation in the next Session. It is a shame that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) was interrupted by a contribution that seemed a repetition of the sort of meaningless mantras of accusation and counteraccusation which so often fill this place and are themselves an example of noise pollution.

Mr. Jessel: If the hon. Gentleman happens to be referring to my intervention, I must point out that I was picking up the point made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley), who questioned the credibility of the Government in dealing with noise, including aircraft noise. I merely pointed out the excellent record of the Government, which had not been an echo of what went before under the Labour Government. That was a legitimate point to make.

Mr. Flynn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for illustrating my point so well again.
My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) referred to the Dalek-like braying at Question Time. It has its positive aspects, however. I know that one of my colleagues who represents a Welsh constituency was grateful for the habit. He purchased a sound tape of an Adjournment debate that he had had at 4 am one day and took it home to his mother, who listened to it admiringly, not realising that he was addressing yards of empty leather. She called in the neighbours and told them to listen to it "When the Prime Minister and the others speak, there is a lot of talking and laughing going on; but when my son speaks you can hear a pin drop."
We have long underestimated the damage that noise inflicts when it bombards our ear drums. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North mentioned industrial noise. Many years ago I worked in a nail factory on the docks in Cardiff, where we were bombarded by deafening noise from dozens of nail-making machines. That was a terrible experience. The noise was so intense that the only way to communicate was to shout at the top of one's voice within a few inches of someone's eardrum. Thousands of people who worked in that factory are now permanently disabled as a result.
We now have the answers. There is no excuse left, but, sad to say, there are still irresponsible employers who allow bad conditions to persist. Some people, too, have little respect for or knowledge about their health and continue to work in damaging conditions.
We have an extraordinary threshold of tolerance of noise. When wartime evacuees went from places such as Liverpool or London to Welsh villages they could not sleep because they were disturbed by the intensity of the silence. It very much depends on the level of background noise to which we are used. It puzzles many of my generation that we have bred a generation of young people who seem to need an endless drip-feed of pop music—who cannot function unless their heads are continually enveloped in a cloud of noise.
But it is sporadic, unforeseen and uncontrolled noise that perturbs us. I refer to formidable and all-pervading intrusive noise nuisance which, when it enters our homes and gardens, trespasses on our peace and violates the private space that we all need around us. I refer to traffic noise, noise from neighbours, noise from night clubs which pour out their megadecibels just when children are going to sleep. Then there is the endless, repetitive barking of dogs and heavy metal music coming from the gardens of neighbours, fracturing our peace and obliterating the sound of bird song. A particularly irritating source of noise is quite new. It comes from the yuppy in the train thundering fatuous messages in a megaphone voice to his secretary on his mobile phone.
Motor bikes are a problem in my constituency, which is ringed by beautiful hills. They are a great nuisance on the roads, but they are excruciating in the countryside, especially when they cavort on the tops of hills, where the macho status of the rider seems to be measured by the number of excess decibels that he can blast out. I remember when transistor radios first arrived to assault our ears. Some poor tormented soul was driven to invent a retaliatory device that he could carry in his pocket and which, when pressed, would turn off the sound of any transistor in earshot.
I know that we are likely to hear many practical suggestions as a result of the Batho report and the coming legislation, but I should have thought it within our wonderful technical power to devise a battery of anti-noise weapons—for example one that could cross the lines of a mobile phone. I have given up hope of breeding a species of dog with an off-switch or volume control, but dogs have been bred in all sorts of mutated forms, some of them damaging to the dogs themselves. The irritant factor consists in the fact that the smaller the dog, the more piercing and worrying its bark. Perhaps we could look to the dog breeders to breed dogs that make less irritating noise.
I should like a zapping device for burglar alarms to silence them, or a device to change the bedlam of heavy metal to the sounds of Pavarotti. Unfortunately, however, one person's Pavarotti is another person's pain in the ear.
I doubt whether burglar alarms are of any use a t all. I have twice experienced burglar alarms going out of control. One erupted into deafening life because there was a break of a few seconds in the electricity supply. That sent out a pulse that caused the thing to ring. I tried everything to silence it—first switching off the electric switch at the mains, which did no good; then dismantling the box inside the house and taking out the battery in it, which did no good either. Then I dismantled the wiring inside the box:


still no peace. One of the dogs joined in the cacophony because it could stand the noise no longer. In the end the only way to silence the alarm was to get a ladder and go up to the box outside, dismantle it and take out the battery.
I had a similar experience a few weeks ago before returning from the recess. Again, a cut in the electricity supply where I live set off a flashing light on top of the building. We could not turn it off for two whole days. The cacophony on the previous occasion lasted for hours and we live in Newport within 200 yards of the main police station, but not a soul took any notice of the noise, least of all the police. It is doubtful whether burglar alarms have any beneficial—

Mr. Summerson: May I recommend a good way of dealing with burglar alarms? All the hon. Gentleman needs to do is to obtain a spade, and a good job can be made of slicing the alarm off the wall with one upward sweep of the spade.

Mr. Flynn: I am grateful for that advice, but I should need a spade with a rather long handle as my flat is about 60 ft off the ground—but I shall remember that and keep one handy.
The message sent out by burglar alarms that are out of control is one of invitation to the burglar. As no one takes any notice of them they act as an invitation to theft, not as a deterrent.
Car alarms seem to have a life of there own. They screech into life for no apparent reason and seem to be out of control. The Minister suggested a five-minute burst but 20 seconds should be the maximum.
It is disappointing that the Government are not acceding to the advice offered by the Select Committee on Defence. I say that in a typical non-party spirit. Low-flying aircraft greatly disturb people in many parts of Wales that are otherwise tranquil. They are a terrible nuisance and the tearing, screeching noise comes on suddenly and is greatly upsetting. I am sure that the Select Committee on Defence had taken all the defence implications into account when it advised that the RAF should abandon low flying down to 100 ft. I understand from reports in this morning's press that the Government do not intend to accept that recommendation.
I hope that the debate and the recommendations will give rise to reforms and new regulations that we shall all be able to welcome. We look forward to the time when there will be peace. Fiat pax. Bydded tawelwch. Let there be peace.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: We are not often afforded the luxury of a whole evening's debate on an issue that is dear to the hearts of my constituents. I intend to take full advantage of the opportunity to draw attention to a problem that we have had to live with for many years. It is the problem of serious noise pollution and it was referred to by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) who spoke about noisy parties and blues parties. I am worried about the level of expectation that the debate will arouse among my constituents and among those who live in inner-city areas.

They will be delighted at our opportunity to debate noise but if nothing comes from it there will be tremendous disappointment.
In the past 12 months we have had many debates on the environment. We have debated the Environmental Protection Bill and before us is the working party review on noise. We have had a White Paper and no doubt there is another environment Bill in the pipeline. Such high priority by the Government is welcome. In the past 12 months there has been ample scope to legislate in areas that are most crucial to improving the quality of life of our constituents. Such issues are also a Government priority, as we have proved.
In order to make progress on problems resulting from noise pollution, Departments will have to work more closely together. Earlier we heard about the need for Environment Ministers to work more closely with Transport Ministers. I am keen to see the Home Office working closely with the Department of the Environment. Although many of the issues that I shall raise do not directly affect the Department of the Environment, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take them on board and deliver them carefully and in a committed way to his colleagues in the Home Office.
The absence of a recommendation in the working party report to make deliberate, sustained and excessive noise a criminal offence worries me. In spite of all the debate over past months, we are in danger of failing yet again to tackle one of the most serious issues undermining the quality of life in inner cities and causing untold anguish to residents who have to live with our failure to legislate effectively.
Noise pollution caused by blues parties and noisy parties, often held in semi-detached houses in residential areas, has proved dreadful. More often than not such parties are held in council properties. The problem is far from new. Blues parties have been with us for about 30 years, especially in urban areas such as London, Birmingham, Wolverhampton and Manchester. I could add to that list. Successive Governments have merely tampered with the issue and have consistently failed to bring forward specific legislation giving the police or another body the authority to take immediate action to stop noisy parties.
The latest figures at my disposal for the west midlands relate to 1988. They record 4,412 incidents with a noisy party classification. I regret to say that 773 of those incidents took place in Wolverhampton. The local authority at that time issued 40 noise notices. Already between January and September this year 36 notices have been served under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. As I have said, the problem is not peculiar to Wolverhampton and the west midlands. I would resist any attempt, such as that made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North, to set up a recognised formal location in which such parties could be held. I know that my constituents who live with this problem would resist such a proposal at all costs.
Why did the Government act so swiftly to legislate to deal with the relatively new problem of acid parties? The parties are held in rural areas and more often than not they are not held in residential homes but out in the wilds in warehouses or similar places. We strengthened the law in that respect but disappointed my constituents by not acting more rigorously to improve the quality of life of our inner-city residents by acting on noisy parties.
In January 1990, the Department of the Environment wrote to my local council. Hon. Members who know me


well will know that I do not often agree with that Labour-controlled council. However, we are at one on the problem of noisy parties. The DOE letter stated:
Although the Environmental Protection Bill does present an opportunity to consolidate into a single code the various definitions of statutory nuisance—including noise—it was never the intention that the Bill be used at all to introduce major changes to noise legislation. Whilst I appreciate that you will be disappointed that there will be no more new noise provisions in the Bill the Government believes that a thorough review to identify what further measures are necessary is, on balance, preferable to suggesting clauses that would not have been subjected to a reasonably wide consultation.
My retort to that is, "And so say all of us."
With bated breath, and after many years of waiting for action, we awaited the conclusions of the working party which are now before us. I turned to the chapters on noise, especially neighbourhood and entertainment noise, because problems about those matters fill my mail bag. When I read those chapters my heart sank. It was a little bit like reading the guide to the noise complaints procedure. I was given that guide and told to show it to my constituents. I have no doubt that it contains much good information, but if I gave it to my constituents as an answer to the problem of noise they would laugh at me and say, "That is the theory but please deal with the practice." Time and again, a great deal of theory has been proved not to work in practice. With the greatest of respect, while I believe that the working party did its best to be constructive, I must point out to it that we have been there, we have seen it and we have done it. Its proposals give little hope of a solution to our problems.
We have looked at neighbourhood noise watch. The environmental health officers have looked at night time patrols and weekend patrols. We have set up working parties involving the police and environmental health officers, and they have all worked to ensure that they know the guidelines and the law. However, the problem is how to produce a solution from what is available. I could fill the Chamber with Wolverhampton constituents who could testify from first-hand experience that even if the law were amended by the proposals of the working party, that would not increase the powers of those responsible for putting an end to the blues and noisy parties when they are in full flight.

Mr. John Carlisle: Does Wolverhampton have the same problem that we have in Luton, with blues parties in which large numbers of people participate? In many cases, when the police are called, there are either insufficient numbers of police to cope with the problem or the police are frightened to go in to break up the parties because of the ensuing mayhem. In some cases, the police will be accused of stopping people enjoying themselves. We have now reached the dangerous situation where police almost back off in fear of life and limb from these parties, let alone of the backlash that results.

Mrs. Hicks: Police cannot gain access in many cases, and if they choose a sensitive moment to go in, they have to have a reason for doing so.
It is time that the House listened to the people who suffer. Working parties are good. They provide the theory, but we need constructive action based on that foundation. I have the example of Mr. John White, an 81-year-old heart attack and stroke victim who lives in a Wolverhampton block of flats where a blues party took

place this year. Most of the residents in the block are elderly, so perhaps the housing manager is wrong for allowing a mix of young and old in a block of high-rise flats, but that is another point.
Mr. White lives below the flat where the party went on for three days and nights solidly. He said:
I felt like committing suicide, the noise was so loud—I wanted to go up there but I was too scared.
At the age of 81, he was quite right not to tackle 200 or 300 people, but he needs someone to do it for him.
I know how I feel about noise in flats. I have a humble little abode in London, to which I return late at night. The only good thing about this place sitting until the early hours is that if I get home at 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning, I have only to endure a couple of hours of the noisy record player below me, which goes off at about 3 o'clock. As 1 lie there, willing it to end, I think of that man and others like him who have to endure not one hour or one record but 200 or 300 people, amplified music and so on, for 71 hours. It is hard for us to imagine such a situation.
People living in a semi-detached house can watch 200 or 300 people pouring into the next-door house for days on end. They can watch the hot dog stall arrive outside to set up business. Meanwhile, the neighbours try to get children to sleep. They endure the associated problems of prostitution, alcohol and drug abuse and so on. When the party finally ends, they are left with the debris and the glass.

Mr. David Evans: Do not forget the football hooligans.

Mrs. Hicks: I agree with my hon. Friend. The people who have to deal with the parties have to watch the fights in the street, people urinating, car loads coming and going. They wonder why someone is not doing something about this.
I have to report the frustration of the residents, the police, the local authority enforcement officers and the local Member of Parliament—me—who is asked why something is not being done about the problem. The problem is that when these people phone the police, they are told that the police have no right of entry. Often, they are in a disturbed and angry state, and they believe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) hinted, that the police are looking for excuses not to intervene. That is dangerous because, more often than not, that is not the case. I have a lot of dealings with police in my town and they point out to me that they are not permitted to go into a house.
When there are complaints about noisy parties, the only solution is to go through all the rigmarole of getting an environmental health officer to serve an abatement notice, but that does not mean that the party will stop immediately. The notice says that the noise should slop within 30 minutes, and if it does not, the prosecution can proceed and the case will go to the courts two or three months later. Meanwhile, the party goes on for two or three days and the enforcement officer and the police cannot go in.
There is often a problem in indentifying the person holding the party. In many incidents, people have borrowed keys claiming that they want to rent a property, taken a copy of the keys and then held a party in that property. Unfortunately, my local council has so many empty properties that it is easy for parties to be held in this


way. It does not seem to matter that there is no electricity because people install generators in the steet. They have an answer to everything.
A leading policeman in Wolverhampton said something about this in October 1987—that far back—and I quote him because it is often said that the police do not want more powers and this shows that they do. He said:
Blues parties are the greatest potential source of serious disorder that we have got in this borough. We are defeated in terms of noisy parties—the law doesn't provide any answer. It is the worst problem we've got.
Wolverhampton council and the police have worked closely to overcome the problem and to look for solutions, but they do not have the power to stop the noise immediately. How can the Government say, hand on heart, that controls on neighbourhood noise are already sufficiently tough?
Earlier in the year I received a letter from a member of my party who wrote to me complaining of this problem and asking me to check whether the police were simply looking for excuses. I received a reply from the Home Office which said:
I understand that one of Mrs. Hicks' constituents had written to say that they had complained to the police about noise from a neighbour's house, only to be told that the police had no powers to put a stop to it.
We can confirm that this is correct. The police have no statutory powers of entry where the problem is simply one of noise.
The use of "simply" is surely an understatement. The letter continues:
Sometimes, provided the person making the complaint has already asked his neighbour to desist and has been ignored, the police will ask a householder to keep the noise down.
They have no power to enforce that request. The police say, "Please turn the music down," but the party continues. The letter adds:
in practice the majority of people will comply.
We have heard something about cloud cuckoo land recently, and I suggest that the letter is another example of that. It continues:
The only recourse open to your constituent under statute is through the Control of Pollution Act 1974.
It seems that at that stage there is an invitation to go round in circles yet again. The letter adds:
If the noise does not stop"—
obviously, we are not talking of one isolated party—
the complainant can, with the support of two other people, approach the local authority for a noise abatement notice. If subsequent to this the noise still continues then the person responsible for it can be prosecuted.
We are back to square one.
After a thorough study of the practicalities of the problem, I am convinced that the police need the authority to enter premises. I shall be grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister if he takes up that message. The police should be able to enter premises and effectively stop the party. If necessary, they should be able to arrest the organisers and remove the offending audio equipment, drink, generators and other items. The police should have the power to request party organisers to abate the noise. If the request is ignored, the police should have the power to enter the premises by force, if necessary, and stop the party there and then.
These powers may appear to many to be draconian. Two or three years ago, even the police in my constituency would have argued that they were not needed. It is for

legislators, however, to include conditions with police powers and to provide safeguards. It may be considered that local authority representatives and environmental health officers are present when the police go to premises where parties of the sort that I have described are taking place. As they all work closely together to curb the problem, there is no reason why local authority representatives and EHOs should not be present when a request is made to a party organiser to stop the activity. I am sure that after one or two closures the message would begin to reach home. The organisers might then adopt a more co-operative approach than at present.
At the moment, party organisers are laughing at us. They are getting away with murder, as it were, and they know it. Those who organise blues parties—often on a semi-commercial basis—are often awkward and uncooperative. They have no regard for the welfare and well-being of those living around the premises which are being used for the party. Often they are strangers to the area.
Are we on the side of the offenders or on the side of the general public? I say to those who argue that we should not give powers to the police that they are on the side of offenders.
Another letter from the Department of the Environment to the local council of January 1990 stated:
The Government need to be satisfied that existing powers are inadequate before contemplating giving the police the power of entry to seize equipment they request.
I believe that I have the evidence—this is true of many other hon. Members who represent urban areas—to fill a book. I shall endeavour to satisfy the Government of my case. If we continue to ignore the views of all those who are confronted by the problem, including EHOs, the police and residents, we could be accused of turning a blind eye to a real problem.
We have fulfilled many commitments to improve the quality of life in our cities. I was so proud when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made that improvement a priority in June 1987. Unfortunately, we still have to solve the problem of noise, but I live in hope. I feel that we have not fully understood the problem. I am sure that it is not a matter of our wishing to do nothing about it. Some of the letters that I have received confirm that that is so. As I have said, I live in hope, and I am sure that the same can be said of many of my constituents, who have asked me to raise this issue in the House for many years. I am sure that the Government will listen.
We have time to make amends in a future environment Bill and also in a future criminal justice Bill. If we do not legislate, what realistic remedy would the Government suggest, if it is accepted that the present mechanism does not work? We have already lost far too many opportunities. I remind the Department of the Environment of a promise that was made in December 1989 when the announcement was made that the Government were to review noise laws. It said:
Together with other Government Departments we shall take whatever action is necessary to strengthen the law in relation to noise nuisance generally.
I implore my hon. Friend the Minister not to waste the opportunity that is still open to him and the Department to do something to reduce the problem and to improve the quality of life of inner-city residents.

Mr. Tom Cox: It is a great pleasure to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks). I am sure that her comments will be echoed. Indeed, I intend to speak about the very problem to which she referred. Whatever part of the country we represent, I am sure that the nuisance that she has outlined has been suffered by many of our constituents. The hon. Lady obviously lives in her constituency, as I live in mine, and we know at first hand the suffering of many of our constituents.
There are many obvious and important aspects of noise pollution, but I wish to direct my remarks to that of loud music. Blues parties take place in my constituency in south London, but I have more in mind the problem of loud music that is played in residential areas and not necessarily at a party. I am sure that such music is often played by those who enjoy it. It is questionable, however, whether it is enjoyable when it starts to be played early in the evening and continues for hour after hour, night after night. I am talking about extremely loud music. The problem has existed in my constituency for many years.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East outlined her involvement with various organisations that come within the ambit of the police or the local authority. Over the years, I have had the same involvement. I wonder whether the Minister, and previous Ministers, fully understand the suffering of ordinary families throughout the country.
In a residential area in my constituency, a man tried politely and peacefully to reduce the level at which extremely loud music was being played night after night. I understand that he said, "Could you please turn the music down?" or, "Could you play your music until 11 or 12 at night and then stop doing so?" My constituent was told in no certain terms to get lost. We all know the sort of language that is associated with such statements. He was told also that if he did not get lost there would be means by which he would soon be parked along with his complaint. He told me about this, and I took up the matter with the then junior Minister at the Department of the Environment, the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottoinley), who is now the Minister for Health. The hon. Lady was extremely courteous. She wrote to me saying that she could well understand the problem which faced my constituent in this instance, and which was shared by many others throughout the country. Sadly, what she wrote brought no help to my constituent.
When the noise recommenced, my constituent did what think all of us in this place would consider to be the proper procedure. Sometimes, we parliamentarians feel that we have a better understanding of the law than many of those whom we represent, but my constituent did the right thing and went to the police. As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East said, there are many who feel that police powers are inadequate, and I agree with her to some extent. There are grounds for saying that the police should be given more powers.
When my constituent told the police what was happening, they said that they would respond. After a while they went to the house where the music was playing so loudly. They knocked on the door and asked for the volume to be turned down, and it was. About half an hour later the volume of the music was increased, and again my constituent contacted the police. Again, the police

attended, the same request was made and the same action was taken. The music was turned down, but half an hour later it was turned up again. My constituent went to the police again, who said "We understand what you are going through, but we do not have the manpower to keep sending one or two officers to the person whom you and we have identified as making the noise."
I have discussed this problem repeatedly with chief superintendents in my borough. They say, "We are fully aware of this. We are inundated with complaints in the spring and summer, but such are the pressures of work that we no longer are available or willing to become involved in this problem."
My constituent explained his problem to the environmental health officer of Wandsworth borough council. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) spoke of her experience and said that local authorities, irrespective of whether they are Conservative or Labour-controlled, are genuinely concerned about noise problems in their areas. However, as she said, resources are a problem and authorities either do not have sufficient environmental health officers or they are not available at the time of night when they need to hear what the noise levels are. People are told by authorities, "We are sorry, but we do not employ officers after a certain time at night."
Having been to the police and the local authority, my constituent found that he was getting nowhere. He came to see me, and I took up his case with the then junior environment Minister. My constituent—I am sure that we can all understand this—had reached the stage of feeling utter despair. He followed what he assumed were the correct procedures, but he got nowhere.
My constituent was told by the environmental health officer in Wandsworth—and he meant this in good faith—to take a tape recording of the noise, which he did. He then took it to the council, only to be told by another officer, "You were given the wrong information because such evidence is not acceptable in court." The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East mentioned problems lasting weeks and weeks in her constituency. We can all speak of the noise problems that our constituents face week after week, but my constituent's problem lasted about three months.
My constituent then took out a civil action and won. He came to see me and told me of the suffering that his family had experienced. His wife, sadly, became so depressed because of this ongoing problem that her doctor sent her to St. George's hospital, Tooting, for treatment. As my constituent saw it, that was caused by the lack of action by the police and the local authority.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East made a splendid speech on this important issue. She asked when we will get action, which is what we are seeking. I am sure that Ministers will say, "It is perhaps a small problem in some areas, but do not let us go overboard." Hon. Members know that it is a major problem in many parts of the country.
Sadly, for many years, my constituency has been notorious for prostitution and kerb crawling. Over the years, I have made speeches in the House, asked questions, met my local police, held public meetings and brought delegations of constituents to the House to meet Home Office Ministers. I can go back to when the noble Lord Whitelaw was Home Secretary and when Sir Leon Brittan was a Home Office Minister. They replied, "We


understand the problems that your constituents face; we shall do something," but they would never tell me when that would happen. It was about 15 years before the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) introduced a private Member's Bill giving greater power to the police to prevent kerb crawling. That took years and years of action, not only by me but by other hon. Members, of whom I think the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) was one, because I know that Luton has suffered from this problem, as have many other towns. When will we get action?
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East spoke of giving the police greater authority. I would not be hostile to that, but every hon. Member would want to know exactly what those powers would be. We need much greater control over noise. I do not think that any of our constituents can be in any doubt when music is being played loudly, and, by golly, they cannot be in any doubt when it is being played excessively loudly.
We all know about the Prime Minister's view of Wandsworth annd its wonderful poll tax.

Mr. Keith Vaz: Deception.

Mr. Cox: My hon. Friend says, "Deception," and, by golly, there has been deception. We in Wandsworth are facing massive cuts in all the essential services. Many of the voluntary services are being faced either with total or substantial cuts. What hope is there of getting more environmental officers or that they will be on duty when they should be?
This has been an interesting, good debate. As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East said, people outside, who will read reports of this debate or will perhaps hear excerpts on the radio, will say "Thank goodness someone in Parliament has been talking about the problem", but they will then expect action. I mentioned the problems that other hon. Members and I faced in trying to curb prostitution in our areas. That may have been a difficult problem, but it was never as difficult as we were led to believe. However, our constituents are right to expect some urgent action by the Government on the problem of loud music. The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) intervened to make that very point.
The question is, when will the Government listen to what hon. Members have said, irrespective of their party? As Harry Truman said, the buck stops here. The buck on this vital issue stops with the Minister. I hope that he will give hope not only to hon. Members but especially to the people we represent.

Mr. John Carlisle: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox). He may recall that some 11 years ago he followed my maiden speech and made nice noises about it. His excellent contribution followed the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks). The problems about which they spoke echo those that we face in my constituency of Luton, so I shall be able to be more brief than I should otherwise have been.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to two noise matters, the first of which concerns car noise and motor traffic. This country's major motorway goes

through the middle of my constituency. The White Paper on roads states that that road is to be upgraded to four lanes within a short time. We welcome that and, as one who represents a car manufacturing town, I should welcome an improvement in Britain's road infrastructure.
I should like to make a point to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State because of the cosy relationship that he now enjoys with his colleagues in the Department of Transport. The owners of the houses that will be affected by the road widening in my constituency and nearby look to the Government for assistance to alleviate the terrible nuisance from which they now suffer and which will be increased when the new highway is built. In the past, compensation was given on the rates. Local authorities cannot now make rate reductions because there is a personal tax.
It is interesting that the Department of Transport is talking about additional compensation for those who will suffer increased nuisance and noise because of the new motorway. I hope that it will continue to put money and research into building new banks and fences. What has been done with some new motorways is creditable. I hope that the Department will take note of the enormous nuisance that the new road will cause to many constituents.
My next point, which has been brought well to the fore by my fellow urban Members, concerns noisy parties. The hon. Member for Tooting and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East spoke about the frustration that they cause. There is a lack of adequate safeguards to deal with the terrible nuisance that they cause to old people and those who work night shifts and sleep while others play, as happens in our great manufacturing areas.
I should like to highlight one point which, although somewhat sensitive, must be paraded. A large number of people in Luton originated from the Caribbean. The young men and women have a habit of playing their music more loudly than normal and of playing music which, because of the thumping of the bass from drums or guitars, is much more of a noise nuisance than other music. The police are unable, and sometimes unwilling, to censure those causing that nuisance because of the delicate, and understandable, issue of race relations in the town. Race relations in the town are excellent.
The culture of some of the people who originated in the Caribbean islands is alien to many people who live in urban areas. What may be acceptable in a Caribbean town, with the long nights and the lapping seas, is not acceptable in the middle of Luton when people are trying to get to sleep because they have to get up the next morning and work in the local factories.
I offer a suggestion to the House and the police. Most of the people from those ethnic origins are members of various organisations and their ties are strong. I pay tribute to the leaders of those communities who try where they can to be good neighbours and to control the nuisances that some of their youngsters cause. Rather than throw more resources at the problem—which the hon. Member for Tooting half hinted at—we should try to strengthen community relationships and persuade the leaders of those communities that it is unneighbourly for young men and women to behave as they do.
Inevitably, some racial disharmony exists when 200 to 300 of those youths and girls converge not just on a semi-detached house—as described by my hon. Friend the


Member for Wolverhampton, North-East—but on the 10th storey of a tower block. There are several such blocks in my constituency and those gatherings cause even more nuisance to the hundreds of people who live in them. It is up to local communities to try to control their own people and to be a little more co-operative with the police.
This is a problem and a scourge. There is no doubt that, to some extent, we have almost been frightened to tackle it. After two long, hot summers, the problem has developed to such an extent that people are talking about having to leave districts where they have lived for years. Three-day parties are not unusual in my constituency, especially over bank holiday weekends. These people hold these parties without any regard for their near neighbours or their neighours for many miles around.
Hon. Members who respresent urban constituencies are pleading with the Government to deal with that problem, which will not go away. Much as I admire the idea of a pilot quiet neighbourhood scheme, I fear that it will be yet another fudge in some areas where the worst problems occur. The issue is extremely serious and it is distressing for my constituents to have their lives disrupted in that way. I hope that the optimism that may have been generated by the fact that we are discussing this subject will spill out to the Department of the Environment and particularly the Home Office and that some corrective punishment and corrective legislation is proposed so that nuisance goes away for ever.

Mr. Keith Vaz: I welcome the debate and the choice of the environment as the subject for the last debate of this Session. Only in a place like this could we hear, as we did in the more sensible contribution of the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), about the singing cockerels in Luton; about the blues parties in Wolverhampton; and about mutated dogs in Newport. Perhaps later—I am afraid that I shall not be able to stay for the end of the debate—we will hear about hysterical iguanas from Ipswich. Had our proceedings not been televised, I would expect Miss Esther Rantzen to walk in and put us all on her show on Sunday.
I have a story about noisy pigeons. Shortly after I was elected, a local lady, Mrs. Murray, came to visit me at my surgery. She lived not in my constituency but in the county and therefore, according to parliamentary etiquette, I was not able to take up her case. She complained because her next-door neighbour had 100 pigeons in his pigeon loft. They would coo and make noises that prevented her and her husband from sleeping at night. I sent her to her own Member of Parliament, a Conservative Member whose name I shall not give as he is retiring at the next election. His solution was that Mr. and Mrs. Murray should get a licence, go to the local shops and purchase a gun and shoot the pigeons. I thought that that was rather a dramatic way of dealing with the problem. Although we all have amusing tales, these are major problems for those who have to put up with nuisance from noise.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), whom I have known for many years—he was already a Member of Parliament when I went to school in Twickenham 20 or so years ago—referred to the Labour Government's record on aircraft noise. He said that it was the present Government's policy to prevent the expansion of Heathrow airport and that they had stopped the

development of terminal 5. He will recall—as I do, because I was the prospective parliamentary candidate for neighbouring Richmond and my sister was the prospective candidate for Twickenham—the terminal was stopped because of the efforts of a residents' campaign involving all the political parties. The hon. Gentleman led the campaign in his constituency, but the other parties joined in the protest. That is why the Government turned down terminal 5.
The hon. Gentleman was wong to say that no major expansion of Heathrow has occurred under this Government. I have a note from the Library saying that the inspectors' report on terminal 4, published in December 1979, was accepted by John Nott, a Conservative Minister, on 17 December 1979. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that it was this Government who stopped the expansion of Heathrow airport is not borne out by the facts.

Mr. Jessel: What I actually said will appear in Hansard tomorrow. I betted that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) could not name anything that the Labour Government had done to restrict aircraft noise at Heathrow, and I named three of this Government's actions—in respect of terminal 5, the Heathrow-Gatwick helicopter link and the curtailment of night flights.

Mr. Vaz: Hansard will also show that the hon. Gentleman has his facts wrong. It was under a Conservative Government that terminal 4 was agreed to.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) was right to say that this debate is important. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) was wrong to praise the Prime Minister's action. She said that, in 1987, the Prime Minister appeared on the scene like a green goddess and adopted the environment as the subject of a major policy shift for the 1990s. The green goddess has turned to green gunge and the Prime Minister and the Government have done little, if anything, to protect and preserve our local environment.
My constituency falls within the Leicester district council area. We are proud of Leicester city council's record and we claim to have a better record than any other city in the country.

Mrs. Hicks: I was not talking about the Prime Minister's achievements on green issues, the environment and inner cities. I was referring to her important achievements in housing, education and law and order and about what has been done to improve the quality of life of those who live in tower blocks, some of whom hold the blues parties to which I referred.

Mr. Vaz: I thank the hon. Lady for correcting me. She is right in thinking that there are no results that she could have praised in terms of the Government's policies on environmental issues.
As I said, we like to think of Leicester as the green capital of Europe. The city council, under its chief environmental health officer, Michael Cooke, and its director of planning, John Dean, has put together an environmental strategy, which was published in 1983, long before it was fashionable to be involved with environmental issues.
The issues that I want to raise are concerned not with parties but with the development of industrial policy in our inner-city areas and our outer estates. My three examples all involve residential areas where the development of local industries has resulted in a great deal of noise. I should like planning departments and environmental health departments to act in closer concert in their work on this matter. I know that some local authorities have a policy whereby planning forms part of the environmental health brief. That is a constructive and proper way to deal with these matters. The environmental health departments of local councils ought to have a veto in planning matters as they affect the environment.
All the cases to which I shall refer involve the outer areas of my constituency. The first involves the activities of a firm called Neal Brothers, which has operated in the Charnwood area of my constituency for many years. Without planning consent, that firm constructed a vehicular access which not only caused a great deal of noise but affected the entertainment of almost every person who lived in the Prestwold road area. A local constituency campaign was launched by Mrs. Naylor, of 95 Prestwold road, who complained about the activities of the firm. Because of the way in which planning legislation operates at present, the planning and environmental health departments could not take effective action, even though they seemed to respond quickly to the complaints of local residents and the three local councillors. I hope that the planning Bill that is to be published next week will enable local authorities to take much more effective action on the breach of planning controls.
My second example concerns the Coleman road area of my constituency. Mr. and Mrs. Rossington, of Crown Hills avenue, launched a campaign against a local development by a small manufacturing firm in the Temple road complex. I turned up at the complex at midnight with officers from the planning department to hear for myself the effects of that development. Unfortunately, because we had publicised our visit, the firm closed down early. Those involved must have known that we should be bringing with us representatives of the local press and various items of equipment to monitor the firm's activities. Since then the activities have been resumed and the noise nuisance and the nuisance from the lights surrounding the car park have been described by local residents as intolerable.
My third example of inner-city industrial chaos comes from the Oak street area of my constituency, where Mr. and Mrs. B. Jenney—local people—launched a campaign to prevent a local construction firm, Paul John Construction, from seeking to vary the conditions of planning control and work for 24 hours. In her letter to the local authority Mrs. Jenney wrote:
our home is only 10 feet from the property for the whole length of our house, so we get vibration and noise in every room, with no quiet area. The houses are very old and the vibration is very bad when heavy equipment is being brought in and out of the property in question. This is causing a lot of concern re the foundations of our home.
The Jenneys went on to explain that they could not possibly live in the house because of the noise generated by the firm.
Similar problems afflict the semi-residential, semi-industrial, West Humberstone area of my constituency.

People really are fed up with the fact that the local planning department does not have the necessary powers to curtail the activities of developers.
We know that a planning Bill is coming and we know that the Government have said broadly tonight that they will introduce measures to abate noise nuisance at a local level. However, words are cheap. The Opposition expect action to be taken now, not just because of the examples that we have raised, but because of the example referred to by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East of the 81-year-old gentleman in her constituency who has a noise problem. People of that age may not live long enough to see the results if we do not act soon. I hope that urgent action will be taken to enable people to live peacefully in their homes.

Mr. Toby Jessel: I hope that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) will forgive me if I defer for a few minutes my reply to some of his points. I want first to mention the fact that the secretary of the working party which produced the Batho report entitled "Report of the Noise Review Working Party 1990" was a constituent of mine, Charlie Bayne, who died in July. Some years ago he suffered a serious accident which left him paralysed. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside has already paid tribute to Mr. Bayne and my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House did so last Thursday. In his foreword to the report, Mr. Batho states:
The Working Party wishes to place on record their appreciation or the work done by our Secretary Charlie Bayne who died a few days after our final meeting. He earned the respect of us all for his great tenacity and application.
Although Mr. Batho and others made major contributions to that report, the report can be seen partly as an achievement of Charlie Bayne.
The Batho report is excellent. It is the first major report on noise since the Control of Pollution Act 1974. It contains a large number of proposals, some of which are being implemented already, as my hon. Friend the Minister said earlier. Many of the proposals deserve the concentrated attention of the Government and of Parliament.
Noise affects many of our constituents. At the outset, the report states:
Noise has the capacity to irritate, annoy, interrupt sleep, increase stress, disrupt concentration and even to damage one's health.
That last point about health was borne out in a study carried out in the mid-1970s by a consultant psychiatrist at the West Middlesex hospital close to my constituency who found a correlation between aircraft noise and mental illness.
Complaints about noise have doubled in the past 10 years and it is a serious matter. The word "noise" is derived from the Latin word "nausea" which is generally used to refer to a loud or disturbing sound. The policy consortium on airports stated:
In reality, noise has the capability to do much more than irritate or annoy. It can seriously disturb concentration, interrupt sleep and cause stress.
Noise is a danger to health. Of course there are pleasurable noises like the cooing of pigeons to which the hon. Member for Leicester, East referred a few moments ago.


Pleasurable noises also include classical music and Army bands, which make one of the finest noises which is a great tradition and one of the glories of the British nation.
Many of the noises that disturb people have already been referred to by hon. Members and they are listed in the documents before us. They include the noise of aircraft, helicopters, trains, lorries, industry, including the construction industry, sport, entertainment, and recreation, noisy parties, amplified music, dogs, burglar alarms and car alarms.
As living standards rise, people tend to worry less about where the next meal is coming from and—[Interruption.] There is a little noise going on at the Table. [Interruption.] On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is rather a lot of noise going on at the Table. As we are debating noise, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) will desist from making so much noise in the vicinity of the Table, thus diverting your attention, and the attention of the Clerk and the Whip from what I am saying.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): That is quite right.

Mr. Jessel: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The improvement in living standards over the past 10 years taken as a whole, although the trend has not been completely even, has meant that as people worry less about where the next meal is coming from, they are more concerned about the quality of their surroundings, including the amount of noise. That is to be expected and the problem must be dealt with.
The greatest source of noise which annoys our constituents is neighbourhood noise. That fact emerged from the working party report. Paragraph I of chapter 3 in the report refers to the Building Research Establishment's inquiry which, in a sample of 14,000 responses, suggests that 14 per cent. of the adult population were bothered by neighbourhood noise, compared with 11 per cent. who are bothered by road traffic noise and 7 per cent. by aircraft noise. That would be a stratified random sample covering the whole country. That fact that aircraft noise is third on that list in no way implies that it is not very serious in the communities that are affected by it. A much higher proportion than 7 per cent. of the people would be bothered by aircraft noise in areas where such noise is concentrated.
In England and Wales, neighbourhood noise is the most annoying source of the nuisance. The 14 per cent. of people bothered by such noise is broken down further in the report which shows that amplified music is responsible for 34 per cent. of complaints and dogs for 33 per cent. Those two categories are far and away ahead of any other form of neighbourhood noise. After those two come domestic activities—whatever that may mean—at 9 per cent., voices at 6 per cent., DIY activities at 5 per cent., car repairs at 3 per cent. and other sources of neighbourhood noise, constituting 10 per cent. taken together.
The difference between the 34 per cent. for amplified music and the 33 per cent. for dogs is not statistically significant. However, we have discussed amplified music this evening much more than we have discussed dogs. I do not know why that has happened, because there is no significant statistical difference between the figure for

amplified music and that for dogs in the sample of 14,000. Indeed, the two can be taken as level pegging with regard to the number of complaints that they have generated.
Undoubtedly, the sound of dogs barking is very annoying to some people. It is a disjointed, tiresome noise—sometimes high-pitched. It must be regarded as a serious form of pollution. It would not be much helped by dog registration.
The Minister of State suggested the introduction of a pilot scheme for the abatement of neighbourhood noise in which he would seek the co-operation of the whole local community. I hope that, when that is suggested to the first neighbourhood to take it on, it will be invited to place not only amplified music but the sound of dogs barking high on its list of priorities for co-operation in the local communities because of the high rating given to both nuisances in the sample in the report.
I happen to enjoy Sunday morning gardening. I potter around as quietly as I can in my garden, pruning or whatever. My next door neighbour has six dogs, one of which is a Jack Russell, which has sharp ears. However quietly I carry out my pruning, it triggers a spate of barking by that Jack Russell, which I happen to find annoying. Conversely, I have to burn my wood because the local rubbish collection service will not collect garden prunings and clippings. One cannot use wood and prunings for compost, and I cannot get rid of it. If I burn the wood I can be prosecuted for pollution, although it is a perfectly healthy country smell which no one minds very much, yet if my neighbour disturbs me with dogs barking, there is nothing at the moment that can be done about it. That seems to be nonsense, and I hope that the Government will direct their attention to it.
I share the view of hon. Members on both sides of the House that amplified music is an appalling din. Whether it comes from late-night parties, acid house parties, blue parties or just young people who like their amplifiers tuned up as loudly as possible, it is grossly inconsiderate behaviour to blare out hyped-up music often late at night with a total lack of regard for the effect upon neighbours. I hope that that matter will feature largely in any action that the Government decide to take. I hope that the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) that the Government look at Scottish law on this matter, including the confiscation of equipment, will be acted upon.
Our constituents want something to be done. They know that the report has been published. They do not expect an immediate decision on it next week, but they want something done within the next six to 12 months. I hope that the Government will introduce legislation and/or take some action to see what can be done about that terrible form of nuisance which afflicts large numbers of people.
Piped music, whether in restaurants or shops, is very annoying and degrading. In restaurants, it is unflattering to clients because it presupposes that they are incapable of making conversation with each other during the meal and that they have to have piped music to occupy their ears. It is an evil thing and I hope that something can be done to suppress it. Likewise, with transistor radios and car radios. Last week I was stuck in a traffic jam and there was a yuppy with an open car stuck next to me. He had his car radio turned on very loudly. I leaned out of my window


across to him, and said, "Would you please turn down that noise?" and he automatically did. Then he realised that he did not have to do it, and he turned it up again.
The Government should consider within their purview the suppression of noises from loud car radios as well as domestic radios, transistors, and other audio equipment in the street or in areas in which people live.
I now refer to transport noise. No one who has not lived under the flight path close to one of our major airports should take a cavalier attitude to the many thousands of people who do. This matter affects the constituents of hon. Members on both sides of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Sir B. Hayhoe), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground), my hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), for Esher (Mr. Taylor), for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), for Windsor and Maidenhead (Sir A. Glyn), for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) and others around Heathrow, not to mention those around Gatwick, have been active in the matter, as has the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox).
Aircraft noise is a major social evil in communities that are affected by it. It is not just a cause for cranks and nuts. It affects ordinary, sensible people. It spoils their enjoyment of their homes and gardens and interferes with the work of offices, schools, hospitals and churches. As I have said, it makes some people ill. We have to do more about it.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) implied that the Government had no credibility in dealing with the problem of aircraft noise. She was kind enough to allow me to intervene, and I pointed out that the Conservative Government had stopped the fifth terminal, stopped the Heathrow-Gatwick helicopter link when the M25 motorway was completed, and sharply curtailed the number of night flights at Heathrow. That was done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) some years ago. His decision was endorsed and repeated by successive Secretaries of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson), the present Secretary of State.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East pointed out—it was perfectly true—that the incoming Conservative Government in 1979 approved the construction of the fourth terminal at Heathrow. But that was already well included in the governmental pipeline by the time the change of power in June 1979 took place. On 22 February 1978 Lord Balfour of Inchyre asked Her Majesty's Government
when it is expected that the public inquiry into the proposed construction of a fourth terminal building at Heathrow Airport will commence".
Lord Oram, a Minister in the then Labour Government in February 1978 replied:
the public inquiry is expected to begin at the end of May,"—
back in 1978—
but it is not possible to say how long it will last. Assuming approval of the fourth terminal project, it would be for the British Airports Authority to decide when building should commence."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 February 1978; Vol. 389, c. 157.]

Following that, on 19 July 1978 the Earl of Cork asked Her Majesty's Government
by what date, if a fourth terminal should be constructed at Heathrow, all four terminals at that airport may be expected to be fully … operational.
Lord Winterbottom, on behalf of the Labour Government replied:
Subject to the outcome of the public inquiry, the British Airports Authority expect that the fourth terminal might be opened in 1983".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 July 1978; Vol. 395, c. 315.]
In other words, there was a clear intention in the governmental pipeline for that approval and for the opening of the fourth terminal to take place as far back as 1978. I was merely making the point that I had challenged the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North to name one thing that the Labour Government had done to contain the problem of aircraft noise at Heathrow. So far she has not done so; perhaps she will be able to say something about it when she winds up the debate for the Opposition.
We in the House must maintain a constant lobby to protect our constituents from aircraft noise. Only through Parliament and Government can people be protected. It is not the lobbies, the residents' associations or the petitioners who make the decisions on such matters; it is the Government who do so, and who respond to pressure and representations from hon. Members.
Without the Government, and the steps that they have already taken—and may intend to take in the future—to protect people from aircraft noise, the citizen cannot receive such protection. Under the Civil Aviation Act 1949, which was consolidated in the Civil Aviation Act 1982, the citizen cannot sue for nuisance in respect of aircraft noise. That is made clear in chapter 4 of the report by the noise review working party. Paragraph 4·25 states:
Any consideration of the problems caused by aircraft noise has to begin with a look at the present statutory position. Unlike other forms of traffic noise, that which is caused by an aircraft is, so long as the Rules of the Air and Air Traffic Control Regulations and normal aviation practice have been observed, protected from action in respect of trespass or nuisance by ss. 76 and 77 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982".
The citizen living on the flight path cannot do other than rely on the democratic processes of Parliament and Government.
Let me point out to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who is to reply to the debate, that that places on Governments a special duty to listen to hon. Members whose constituencies are close to airports. They have done so in the past, and I hope that they will make a point of continuing to do so.
I well remember the time when six hon. Members, including me, called on my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury in his room. That was in 1984, when he was Secretary of State for Transport. He was largely responsible for the planning decision on the fifth terminal, because the Secretary of State for the Environment—Lord Jenkin of Roding—was precluded from making the decision: he had an interest in it, because he happened to live near Stansted. The key part of the decision, therefore, emanated from the Secretary of State for Transport.
When we went to see my right hon. Friend, we urged him strongly not to grant planning permission for the fifth terminal. He decided to refuse planning permission, contrary to the advice of his planning inspector at the


public inquiry. Accordingly, he refused permission on planning grounds—because he gave weight to the planning aspects of the facts as they were put before him, which related to the peace and quiet and the health of people living around Heathrow airport.
I would very much like a complete ban on all night flights. As I have said, they have been dramatically curtailed by the Government; but I believe that, unless there is an emergency—I make an exception for those—there should be no night flights at all from airports in populated areas between 11 pm and 7 am. I consider that the present night hours of 11.30 pm to 6.30 am for a limited number of flights are too short.
I am glad that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has decided to attend the debate, because he once lived in Twickenham, and is therefore familiar with the problems of aircraft noise. Let me say to him—if I can have his attention for a moment—that all concerned should be warmly congratulated on the expansion of Manchester airport, which comes within the Duchy of Lancaster. The airport has doubled its traffic in the past six or seven years. That has proved enormously useful to people living within reach of it. It also constitutes a boost for employment in the north-west, and the increasing number of scheduled flights helps to some extent—albeit rather a limited extent—to offload traffic from the several London airports.
Helicopters, however, make a most unpleasant whirring, high-pitched noise which is completely uncivilised. I hope that planning permission is refused for a heliport in the City of London—by Cannon Street station, on a platform over the Thames. I refer my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to my Adjournment debate on the subject on 24 May. It is entirely unreasonable to disturb thousands upon thousands of people on the ground just so that a few people can make money, and a few others can save half an hour each. We would be disturbed in the Palace of Westminster, and our Standing and Select Committees, whose rooms overlook the river—which would comprise part of the track of the flight path—would all be disrupted by the noise of helicopters flying between the City and Heathrow. Our work in the Library would also be disturbed.
There is no comparable city-centre helicopter airport anywhere in Europe. The only remotely comparable one is at Issy, a suburb of Paris which is as far from the centre of Paris as Battersea heliport is from the centre of London.
Those who want to travel in helicopters to save themselves half an hour are not always those whose time is so valuable that it is essential to save half an hour: in fact, I do not believe that anyone's time is as valuable as that. Most of those people are business men. I happen to know quite a lot of business men—a number of tycoons and millionaires. They are not people who need to dash about like scalded rabbits saving every second; most are rather quiet and ponderous people who consider matters quite carefully. Those who agitate for a heliport are not the important, top-flight business men whose time is enormously valuable, but the mark 2 business men who want to brag to their wives, or possibly to their children, that they have been up in a helicopter. There is very little more to it than that. I hope that the proposal for a heliport near the City will be shot down, and shot down hard.
So far, we have not had much discussion about motor cycle noise. There was a reference to silencers for cars; I

hope that the Government will consider improving silencers for motor cycles, which make a most annoying noise, disturbing large numbers of people.
Burglar alarms on houses go on and on, causing annoyance out of all proportion to their use. It ought to be compulsory to fit them with time switches so that they go off after 15 or 20 minutes: that is quite sufficient time for neighbours, the police or even dogs to be alerted.
I believe that noise is a terrible nuisance for large numbers of people. I welcome this debate, the report of the working party and the extensive references to noise in the environment White Paper published by the Secretary of State a few weeks ago. I hope that all this heralds action by the Government in the near future, and I hope to hear more about it later tonight.

Mr. Hugo Summerson: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside in his absence that I was not here for his opening remarks. I was detained in my office.
I welcome the Government's proposals. They go some way at least to meeting people's legitimate concerns, particularly on noise. I hope that we shall all be able to build on them. The idea of a pilot quiet neighbourhood scheme is excellent, although I have reservations about how it is to be enforced, especially as those who continually cause a nuisance are normally rather unpleasant and selfish people.
We heard from the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) how a constituent of his was almost driven mad and to despair by a noisy neighbour. We all have examples of such people in our constituencies. I have several examples from my constituency.
Last summer—that long, hot summer—many people in Pearl road were almost driven mad by the activities of one family. It is extraordinary that just one family can upset the residents of an entire street. Pearl road is normally a quiet, residential street. A family came in from outside to a house which, I believe, was taken by a neighbouring local authority. I suspect that it was a problem family to begin with and that the neighbouring authority thought that it had found a good way of getting rid of the problem. We had endless trouble all through last summer because of the selfish activities of that family. I am happy to say that they have gone now, and good riddance.
Unfortunately, my constituents in that road are now suffering again through the activities of a firm that works on motor cycles. It operates late into the night, sometimes until 1 am or 2 am. Motor cycles are delivered at night and people work on them, start them and rev them in the small hours of the morning with complete disregard for the fact that they are working right in the middle of a residential area. They simply do not seem to care about the other people who live there, who have their own jobs to go to and need a decent night's sleep.
Another incident took place in Morgan avenue in my constituency where, again, the activities of just one family caused a nuisance. There were young children, but they are now grown up and are young men. One of them has a motor car, which he has converted into virtually a mobile ghetto blaster. He has installed speakers all round his car. He is in the habit of arriving at his house, sometimes at 3 o'clock in the morning with music belting out all over the


street. People have come to see me about it, but there is little that I can do at present. We simply do not have the powers to deal with such problems.
I am sorry to reel off a list of complaints, but I do it deliberately to bring home to us all how much people in our constituencies are suffering. Another road in my constituency, Leucha road, is inhabited almost entirely by elderly people. In one or two cases a person had died or moved out and the council has moved in young people who have young people's habits. Young and old people's habits often do not work well together. Those young people get up to what young people get up to. No one complains about that except in the context of an elderly neighbourhood. The elderly people object strongly to being woken up perhaps at midnight by noise, racket and laughing. A simple event such as a car turning up, the doors banging and people shouting at midnight is objectionable to people who probably have been in bed for a couple of hours already.
Still on the subject of noise, members of Central parade residents association in Hoe street have been much disturbed by building work in the bank underneath. Much of the work seems to have been carried out without proper consultation of the residents and consideration of their interests.
Burglar alarms and car alarms have already been mentioned. I introduced a ten-minute Bill on such alarms. I had a good response from the British Security Industry Association, which does not like to see the industry brought into disrepute by burglar alarms ringing all weekend, disturbing an entire neighbourhood. Again, I am delighted that the Government have made proposals on the problem.
I should like to reinforce what has been said about limiting—possibly physically—the amount of noise that a radio, television or music centre can make. We all know instances of thoroughly selfish people who simply do not care about the effect that playing their music has on other people at perhaps 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock in the morning with the volume turned up as loud as possible.
I should not object in the slightest if the music were, say a wonderful Bruckner symphony. I should object strongly to rap music being played at 110 decibels. But that is not the point. As has already been said, the point is that one man's like is another man's dislike. We must all learn to live together and we tend to live cheek by jowl. We should all have regard to the effect that our activities may have on our neighbours.
Flat conversions have been mentioned. I am a chartered surveyor and before I was elected I practised as a surveyor. Various authorities used to make it a condition of planning permission to convert a house into flats that suitable sound insulation be placed between the floors. But often that sound insulation consisted merely of a layer of rock wool, or something similar, which was wholly inadequate. Part of the problem is that the structure of many such houses was not originally designed with the possibility in mind that the house might be converted into separate living units. That is a great problem. It might be solved by making the building regulations far more stringent and enforcing planning conditions on conversions.
From the town I want to turn briefly to the countryside. I have a country background, although I represent an urban constituency. I wish to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to horrible things now opening up in the countryside called byways open to all traffic, or BOATs for short. The trouble with BOATs is that anyone using any form of wheeled motorised transport can use them. Once quiet country paths are now used by people on motor bikes or those four-wheel drive machines. As long as at some time the path was used by wheeled traffic—it may have been used by ox carts in medieval times or by Boadicea and her chariot—it can be used by wheeled traffic today. Many country people strongly resent the intrusion into the countryside of those motor bikes and four-wheel drive vehicles. The matter needs to be examined. The vehicles shatter the peace and quiet of the countryside and upset the people who live there. People feel that an unpleasant manifestation of urban habits has come into their midst.
Police powers have been mentioned. That is the way forward. It is absolutely essential that police be given the powers to deal with noise, particularly at night when people are disturbed by noisy parties or whatever. Most people are reasonable and if a party goes on until 11 pm or midnight they will not object, but say, "Fair enough." The problem is when that happens night after night and weekend after weekend. Sometimes a party goes on throughout an entire weekend. The police need to have the power to go to the place where the noise is coming from and to say, "Stop it now or arrests will be made." Noise nuisance should be made a criminal offence.
Guy Fawkes night will shortly be upon us. Already we have heard the first whizzes and bangs, and already I have had the first letters of complaint from my constituents. My plea is that people be considerate in their use of fireworks and think of others in the area, especially old people, cats and dogs that are terrified by the noises. I ask people to enjoy their Guy Fawkes night, but to think of the effects of fireworks on people and animals.

Mr. Michael Irvine: The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) referred to the suffering that noise nuisance causes ordinary people. He was right to put it so strongly. Suffering is indeed caused. For ordinary families with anti-social neighbours noise nuisance is frequently not just a matter of disturbance, upset and inconvenience. It goes well beyond that. In all too many cases it is a matter of real suffering.
There are two main categories of neighbourhood noise nuisance. The first is late-night parties, which can destroy the night's rest for an entire street. A wild, unrestrained party with amplified music with a heavy beat blasting out into the night constitutes social hooliganism on a massive scale. It is essential that the law provides an effective and speedy means of dealing with such parties. It is not just a matter of dealing with them in the courts several months later. It is a matter of dealing with them speedily and effectively then and there, putting an end to the nuisance that very night.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) identified with precision the weakness in the law. If the noise is great, if one can get hold of an environmental health officer and bring him to the scene of the party and if that officer is prepared to serve an


abatement notice, fine. It may be that the nuisance will stop and the party will come to an end. The weakness in the law lies in what happens when the abatement notice is not complied with and the party continues. Although a summons may be issued and two months later a fine—I am afraid all too often a derisory fine—may be levied in the magistrates court, the residents' entitlement to peace, sleep and quiet enjoyment of their properties is lost for that night. That weakness in the law could and should be remedied at an early stage.
The second type of neighbourhood noise is on a rather lower scale and is inflicted by anti-social neighbours on individual families. It is not nearly so obvious as the late-night party variety. The banging of doors, shouting, fighting, dogs being allowed to bark late into the night without any attempt to restrain them, the playing of loud music and banging on walls—general loutish and anti-social behaviour—does not affect the whole street, but makes life a misery for the individual families who are affected. That nuisance is much more difficult to deal with precisely because it affects only one or perhaps two familes, whereas late-night parties affect and affront the whole street.
The nuisance from late-night parties is obvious, and usually there are plenty of witnesses. It is a different matter with lower-level noise nuisance, but such noise nuisance is just as intensely stressful to those directly affected. How is it best dealt with? The key is a responsive and sympathetic attitude to complainants by local authorities—housing departments and environmental health departments alike—the police and the courts.
Earlier this year in Ipswich the chairmen of two local residents' associations took an initiative for which they deserve great credit. Mrs. Patricia Young-Al Salih of the Triangle Residents Association and Lewis Brown of the Whitton Residents Association called a meeting to which they invited representatives of the police, the housing department and the environmental health department, the leader of the council and the Member of Parliament. It achieved two objects. It was useful in bringing home to the local authority and the police both the strength of feeling that action should be taken to deal with late-night parties and lower-level neighbourhood noise nuisance, and also in stressing how important it was to receive complaints sympathetically.
One must realise that it is harder for an individual family to make a complaint against a neighbour than it is if there is a big group of complainants. It is much more invidious. People naturally do not like to make a complaint against their neighbours, as they fear that it could make matters worse. They may be afraid of intimidation and verbal and even physical violence.
If people complain and their complaint is reasonable and sensible, it is essential that local authorities and the police respond sympathetically. Once it gets around that local authorities and the police are prepared to respond sympathetically and to take a firm line against anti-social neighbours, there is much less likelihood of such anti-social behaviour. The main cause of such behaviour is the fact that it is often allowed to go unpunished and unrestrained. If local authorities, the police and local residents' associations make it clear through publicity on local radio, television and the newspapers that they are prepared to take a firm line and to press matters to a

conclusion in the courts, that in itself is a substantial and effective deterrent to anti-social behaviour and noise nuisance.
It is not just a matter of a more sympathetic approach by local authorities or of filling the gaps in legislation where they exist, important though that is. What is also essential is the more effective and efficient use by local authorities and housing associations of the existing powers available to them. There should be a much greater readiness to use injunctions as a means of restraining neighbourhood noise. Judges are often reluctant to grant possession orders and it often takes a long time to obtain them. The great merit of an injunction is that one can apply for and obtain it speedily. One can go to the courts on the day after the anti-social behaviour in question and obtain an injunction simply by establishing a reasonable prima facie case.
Because injunctions do not themselves carry the terrible punishment contained in a possession order, judges are, by and large, much more willing to grant them. Should an injunction that has been granted by a judge he breached, it becomes not just a matter between neighbours or a local authority or housing association and tenant; it is a contempt of court and the court has an array of powers to deal with such a breach.

Mr. Summerson: I am not a lawyer, but I am extremely interested in what my hon. Friend said about injunctions. Can my hon. Friend tell me what sort of evidence a court would require before an injunction was granted? Once it has been granted, how long can an injunction run?

Mr. Irvine: On the assumption that there is a clause in the tenancy agreement between the anti-social tenant and the local authority or housing association that forbids excessive noise, anti-social behaviour and disruption of one kind or another, the court has the power to grant an injunction if prima facie that clause has been breached. Even when there is no contractual relationship—for example, if a family's enjoyment of its property is adversely affected by a neighbour's noise—there is a remedy at common law in nuisance. An individual can get an injunction in support of the common law remedy of nuisance.

Mr. Roger Gale: But at what cost?

Mr. Irvine: My hon. Friend asks, "At what cost?" That is a fair point. By and large, when problems occur on housing association estates and council estates, it is better for the association or the council to take action to keep the tenant who is indulging in anti-social behaviour to the strict conditions of his or her lease. The problem is that some councils and housing associations are unwilling to act. There should be a much greater readiness to grant legal aid, if necessary on an emergency basis, to a tenant who is unable to finance the necessary action to restrain a neighbour.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) touched on another matter of which local authorities and housing associations should take much more account. A great deal of nuisance, upset and distress could be prevented by the sensitive and sensible allocation of tenancies. It is asking for trouble to put young people into a block of flats where the tenants are, in the main, elderly or infirm. That is asking for trouble, but all too often it is done. My remarks have mainly addressed the


problem of neighbourhood noise, which affects a substantial number of people and causes much distress and suffering.
I shall now take up some of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley), who represents a constituency that stands to be adversely affected by the regular movement at night of high-speed freight trains coming through from the channel tunnel. I have a similar constituency problem. Just down river from Ipswich is the great port of Felixstowe, which 25 years ago was a very small port and mainly a seaside town. It was connected to Ipswich and the main railway line by a single-track, old-fashioned railway, originally built to take seaside holidaymakers down to the beaches.
During the past 25 years, Felixstowe has expanded as a port to a phenomenal extent and is now the largest container port in the United Kingdom, with a 24-hour operation. During the night, massive freight trains, usually drawn by two diesel engines and often a mile or a mile and a half in length, make their way along that line which is, for the greater part, still only single track. The vibration from these trains has caused damage to property and the noise has caused considerable upset and disturbed the night's sleep of numerous residents in Ipswich who live close to the line.
To British Rail's credit, under pressure it agreed to make improvements. It imposed specially low speed limits because it was found that, when a 20 mph speed limit was effectively enforced, it reduced not only the noise but the vibration.
Earlier this year, along an important segment of the line where people were being badly affected by noise, British Rail re-laid the ballast, making it much deeper. In particular, British Rail laid continuous welded track along a key section of the line, resulting in a considerable improvement. But there is still, for all that, considerable noise, which is why I listened sympathetically to the representations made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing and why I ask the Minister to take careful note of his arguments.

Mr. Roger Gale: I shall not detain the House for long. Almost every speaker I have listened to in this most interesting debate has touched on the same subject. The core of the problem is that there is no law against unpleasant neighbours—it matters not whether they be in rural villages, urban areas, or the inner cities, or whether they are ethnic neighbours. I listened with great interest and some dismay to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) who sought to make an ethnic point rather than commenting on the real problem, which is that of neighbourhood noise in general.
The police with whom we all deal day by day share with us two or three recurring and intractable problems. The most intractable is that caused by unpleasant and unneighbourly neighbours. I doubt whether there is an hon. Member who does not receive at least half a dozen—many hon. Members receive far more—complaints a year from neighbours about neighbours.
I listened with great care to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine) who commented on the

inadvisability of putting young people in flats predominantly designated for the elderly. As a wry aside I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson), "Yes, because the children would not get any sleep." That was said only half cynically because a pleasant young couple with a young baby in my constituency are having their lives made extremely difficult by an elderly neighbour who does not like them or their baby and who takes delight in turning up the television far too loudly. The House must get to grips with this difficult problem because there are not yet enough powers on the statute book to handle it.
Not many weeks ago the Department published a wonderful book—£24·50, and cheap at the price—entitled "The Common Inheritance". I do not mean to be mocking when I call it a wonderful book. It contains an environmental strategy of which the House and the country should be proud, but, as with most strategies, there are weaknesses in it.
One of the saddest paragraphs in this otherwise mainly magnificent volume is paragraph 16.38. I apologise for having been kept by constituency business from part of this debate, and if the paragraph has been quoted before I can only say that perhaps repetition will do no harm. The paragraph reads:
The Government is not persuaded that it would be right to make noise nuisance an immediate criminal offence".
I understand that thinking; it is a draconian step to bring the criminal law into this sort of arena. But unfortunately the paragraph continues:
or to give the police further powers to control noise. Noise nuisance is often complex and subjective".
The paragraph continues:
While noise can be very annoying, criminalisation is a very heavy stick to take to it.
So it would appear that we are not going to do a great deal about the problem. Paragraph 16.41 states:
Local authorities have powers to serve noise abatement notices and prosecute if necessary. If this does not resolve the problem they can take further court proceedings. The current maximum penalty for non-compliance with an abatement notice is £2,000.
When can the Minister last recall a penalty of even 2,000p being imposed for such an offence? The average environmental health officer is far too busy generally—I would not say too busy tracing stray unlicensed dogs—to get to grips with such problems. In Margate in my constituency, he does not have the time or the staff to investigate vastly over-occupied houses.With the best will in the world he certainly does not have the time, energy or people to monitor the sort of day-to-day complaint that is received by every hon. Member.
If the environmental health officer had the resources, how would he get his evidence? He does his best. When I write on behalf of a constituent, he sends that constituent or me a form for the constituent to complete. He asks the person to keep a note of the date and time of every occurrence of nuisance so that a pattern can be built up and, in time, the council can send somebody round to see the neighbour. Usually within five minutes of a council officer leaving, one neighbour is banging on the other neighbour's door threatening to thump him for complaining to the council.
I said that this was an intractable problem and I do not pretend to have any answers—never mind all the answers. This is not a partisan issue because every constituency suffers from it and the House has to address it. Unpleasant


neighbours make other people's lives a misery. We are not talking just about the young or about members of the ethnic community playing ghetto blasters.
My daughter is 18 and occasionally plays music over the room in which I work. She sometimes plays it rather more loudly than I would like. It will not surprise anyone to know that I have the same altercations with her that most parents have with their children. If such circumstances arise in my domestic environment and, I suspect, in the domestic environments of most hon. Members, it is not entirely surprising that it happens in every street and in every town and village.
There comes a time when nuisance becomes pervasive, excessive and sometimes deliberate. Sometimes the constant revving of motor bikes late at night is done deliberately to annoy a neighbour. At times the constant loud playing of the television or record player is deliberate in order to make other people's lives a misery. At that point, the environmental health officer or the police or both working together should have the powers they need to go in and do something about it.
In my time in the House I have had many complaints but I cannot think of one that has been satisfactorily resolved other than by moving one person, usually the innocent party, out of his home. Invariably, the new neighbour is complaining in less than six months that he is suffering from the same nuisance.
I urge the Minister to take another long, hard look at the problem, and especially at the one weak paragraph in this otherwise proud document "The Common Inheritance" to see whether there is any way of giving the police and the environmental health officers greater power.
I did not come to the Chamber to talk about neighbourhood nuisance at all. I wanted to raise another issue affecting a relatively small number of people nationwide. However, to those people the issue has great importance. It may surprise the House to know that the issue is agricultural nuisance.
I invite the House to picture a scene early on a Sunday midsummer's morning in a Kentish village. Dawn is breaking, so it is perhaps only half-past three. The first bird song is beginning to come across an otherwise still audio horizon. The village is asleep and nothing moves. Suddenly, in the midst of this peace, comes the crash of a gun, and then another and another. There is one every three minutes and only when the church bells start to drown out the noise and the ambient noise takes over can people ignore the guns. These guns are the audible bird scarers used by some fruit farmers.
I live in a rural community and have experienced this, as have a significant number of people living in similar agricultural communities. As with so many other agricultural practices, it is unfortunately the inconsiderate few who cause the problems for the many. Those living in rural areas—particularly those who live, as I do, surrounded by fruit—and who have the benefit of them, understand that birds attack soft fruit, top fruit and young vegetables such as cabbages and peas when they have just been planted. A flock of pigeons, for example, can have a devastating effect on a newly planted field of young vegetables. I have seen farmers in tears as a result of such devastation. Therefore, I do not question the need to use, on occasion, some mechanism or device to scare away birds.
A considerable amount of research has gone into this. As a result of the growth in the problem, an organisation

with the unlikely name of BANG—Birdscarers Anti-Nuisance Group—was formed. It quickly established a sizable nationwide membership consisting of people who discovered that they had a common cause for complaint. That was five or six years ago, and, sadly, these people still have cause for complaint because, with the best will in the world, not a lot has been done.
We have useful meetings with extremely courteous members of the Minister's staff. The civil servants whom the members of BANG have met have been considerate, sympathetic and attentive. We have been waiting for a byelaw or code, which has had the longest gestation period of any document for which I have ever waited. We have seen drafts of this code and we have been invited to comment on it. I hope and believe that members of this organisation have commented intelligently, responsibly and fairly. They have taken no direct action, despite considerable provocation. The organisation has discouraged people from doing what they are most minded to do, which is to go out and take a sledgehammer to the devices.
While we should like to find an entirely separate solution to the problem of bird strikes on fruit and vegetables, and to obviate the need for the use of audible bird scarers, I for one—I do not speak for everybody, because some would like an outright and immediate ban—accept that there are occasions when brief use of audible bird scarers may be justified. However, some farmers overlook what has become known as the dinner gong effect. I have watched pigeons sitting on a telegraph wire waiting for the first gun to go off and then flying towards it because that tells them where the food is. These birds are not stupid. A bird scarer works effectively for about three days. After that, the dinner gong effect comes into play and birds fly towards it, rather than away from it, and they get used to it.
But that in itself is not the problem. The problem is that the code of practice provides that the bird scarer should he used once every 15 minutes. That sounds all right—one bang every 15 minutes within reasonable hours from, for example, 6 am rather than 3.30 am, first light, until not too late at night, say up to 10 pm. It must be realised, however, that that is once every 15 minutes for each machine. If there are three guns in a cherry orchard and each one is firing once every 15 minutes, my miserable mathematics tells me that a gun will fire once every five minutes. If there are another three guns in the next field and a further three in the field next to that, which is owned by another farmer, the effect is rather like that which I described when I began my speech. It is something akin to the battle of the Somme.
I have described a problem which is small in the sense that it does not effect many people, but for those whom it does affect, like those who are affected by the sort of noise nuisance that we have been discussing throughout the evening, it is an extremely serious problem which makes life intolerable.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is sympathetic to the complaint that I have highlighted. I know that he and the civil servants in the Department care and that they want to find a solution. I must say, however, that, as with other problems, the time for research and consultation is over. We need a code of practice that takes full account of the number of machines within a given area as well as times and frequency of use. We need also a model byelaw to back it up. Without that, the environmental health officer, never mind the police, will stated not the remotest chance of controlling not the responsible many, who use


the machines properly, but the irresponsible few. Those few, like the other causers of disturbance of whom we have heard, make others' lives a misery. I look to my hon. Friend the Minister for some comfort for those who I know are concerned. I hope that he will be able to offer it to me this evening.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I apologise to the House for not being here for the earlier part of the debate. I wish to make only two brief points as it would not be fair in the circumstances to seek to make a longer contribution. I have not heard the speeches of the Minister and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) or those of other colleagues. I wish to speak only about neighbour nuisance and vehicle noise.
Neighbour nuisance is a great and intractable problem and is often worse for the victim than for the Member. On some occasions I have been both the victim and the Member. There is a specific problem for tenants—as a matter of law, it is not faced by those who are landlords. If there is a complaint by one tenant about another who is next door or in the same block, a barrier against the taking of action is that the complainant will often find that it is necessary to give evidence in court in due course. He may feel inhibited by the expectation of a threat being meted out by the person against whom he is complaining. An obvious example is that of elderly single people complaining about younger and much more physically active and able people. We have all had such circumstances brought to our attention.
When a landlord is required contractually to provide quiet enjoyment for a tenant, would it not be possible to oblige the landlord to ensure that that requirement is met even if it is not the fault of the landlord that quiet enjoyment there is not? If, for example, a landlord—be it a local council, a housing association or a private owner—owns several properties in the same area and one tenant is causing a breach of the quiet enjoyment to the tenant next door or across the way, it should be possible to have a statutory device whereby, on sufficient complaint in writing by the aggrieved tenant and supported if necessary by the police or an environmental health officer, the landlord can take action as a breach of tenancy without leaving it to the other tenant to take action. Tenants would thereby know that if they broke the terms of reasonable neighbourliness, there was some prospect of them being prosecuted and if necessary—I say this conscious of the implications—losing their tenancy.
That requires simply that we adequately resource environmental health departments to ensure that there are enough officers to monitor the problem. The reality is that there are few such officers. In my borough, on only one night a week can people call on the environmental health department, which has a couple of officers who volunteer to be on duty. Sufficient civil or uniformed policing is not available.
I entirely endorse the sentiments of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine). Local authorities should be much more intelligent in their allocation policy than they often are. They allocate properties in the same area to people of totally different life styles. Placing families who have

young children next to pensioner families is asking for trouble. A more sensitive allocation policy prevents many avoidable disturbances.
On transport, I want to register what seem to be the major complaints. The first very rarely affects a constituency such as Southwark and Bermondsey but it affects much of rural Britain: the extraordinary noise and frightening effect of low-flying aircraft. I stayed with my family in Herefordshire in the summer. Everybody jumped out of their skin as, one after another, low-flying aircraft flew over. My hon. Friends who represent constituencies in the north, Berwick-upon-Tweed and the Borders regularly complain about low flying. It is a blessed nuisance and it must be mitigated and minimised as much as possible.
The second complaint is much more of an urban problem, about which a public inquiry is being held in the City of London—helicopter noise. I have a simple view: in any built-up area it is not possible to have helicopters without adverse environmental impact. I have never known helicopters to be welcome additions to the transport scene in urban areas. The presumption should be strongly and regularly against them.
I ask the Minister to relay to his colleagues in the Department of Transport the point that track, whether it be underground or railway, should increasingly be the most modern technology available—rubberised track, which allows the softest transport of trains. We debated that in the context of the Jubilee line extension. It is possible to have much quieter track, which must be used on all railway developments.
Whatever other complaints we may have about the roads, the one that causes most aggravation is motor cycle noise. I do not know why so many people who ride motor bikes get away with making so much noise so often. It is perhaps because they go so quickly and one cannot take the registration number and report them, but of all the types of traffic noise, we must be much tougher on licensing, inspecting, checking and, if necessary, prosecuting those who ride motor bikes. They not only frighten people but add enormously to the noise of traffic, and a few people can make life hell for many. If they were caught more often, or prevented in the first place, life would be much better and we should have a much quieter existence.

Ms. Walley: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak again.
Virtually every contribution has borne out the importance of the Government tackling the problems of noise. The Opposition have no doubt that the Noise Advisory Council is badly needed once again. Apart from anything else, the findings of the Batho working party have demonstrated that the Government should take action. They should not say, "Wasn't it an interesting debate? Don't we all understand the problems of noise even better?" They should set out in the Queen's Speech new legislation that takes on board the many important issues raised this evening. That is a job for the Under-Secretary of State in conjunction with every one of his colleagues in the Department of Transport—the debate has shown that noise is a dominant problem in transport-related issues—the Home Office, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and every other Department.
The Under-Secretary should not be content with introducing legislation, although the Queen's Speech will be the litmus test of the Government's commitment to dealing with noise. Other things can be done that do not depend on new legislation. I should like the Under-Secretary, after the debate, to let me know what new regulations, statutory instruments and other forms of action will deal with the many problems about which we have heard.
Stoke-on-Trent district council has made representations to me about the issue raised by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and told me how harassed and intimidated tenants are by the prospect of having to make a court appearance to substantiate their allegations about an environmental health problem which should be dealt with by the local authority. It all comes down to resources and introducing a spirit of community so that people want to be more tolerant and are encouraged to be more concerned about others and about the effect of their behaviour on others.
Much has been said about environmental health officers. The Institution of Environmental Health Officers made a substantial contribution to the Batho report. That contribution must be matched by the Under-Secretary recognising that resources are needed. As I said in my opening remarks, the earlier debate on standard spending assessments showed that that had not been recognised. It must now happen. I urge the Under-Secretary to give us some idea whether he will consult as widely as possible with not only the Institution of Environmental Health Officers but the local authority associations which will be involved in implementing the proposals about which we have heard so much.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): The fact that we have had a debate on noise and had so many varied contributions from so many hon. Members shows that noise is very much on the environmental agenda.
The number of complaints from the public about noise nuisance has been rising for some time. This is due not so much to the fact that equipment and vehicles are noisier—often, the reverse is the case, although there are more aircraft and cars—as to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel). People are now more demanding. Now that they have more disposable income and more leisure time, they are less inclined to put up with excessive noise. That is right and proper. This is very much a quality of life issue and it is wholly right that the Government should respond and draw up a package of measures to deal with this difficult subject.
No hon. Member has sought to over-simplify the problem. It is not just that many Departments of State are involved, although a glance at the last page of our noise review working party report shows that six Departments contributed to the review. The complexity of the subject also arises from the fact that judgments about noise are very subjective. Excessive noise is not just about decibel levels but about pitch, tone, timing and duration. That is one reason why the working party concluded that our approach of tackling the problem under the statutory nuisances provisions was right, and that an attempt to criminalise noise would probably fail.
It is a tribute to the noise review working party that it anticipated almost all the points raised in this debate. It did not have complete answers to all the problems but it pointed the way, if not to immediate action, at least to further study. Not all the recommendations are fit for immediate legislation and some of them do not require primary legislation anyway. They concern matters such as building regulations, which can be put into effect without legislation. Other issues are to be pursued through planning guidance notes or negotiations with our European partners. Many of the items that cause noise—cars and other vehicles as well as aircraft—are internationally traded and it therefore makes sense to pursue noise abatement measures in an international context.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) drew attention to the need for resources, and in her introductory remarks, at any rate, she was rather dismissive of the noise chapter in the White Paper. She must surely agree that the fact that a whole chapter has been devoted to noise is an achievement in itself. I cannot help but draw a comparison between that and the paucity of comment on noise in the Labour party's document "An Earthly Chance", in which noise rates only half a column.
The hon. Lady complained that our White Paper lacked specific recommendations. That is an unfair charge, especially as I cannot help noting the wording of the noise section in the Labour party's document, which is full of phrases such as "We shall consider whether" and "We will look at strengthening" and "We will encourage manufacturers". I do not necessarily criticise the Labour party on that score, because these are difficult subjects and it is not always possible to be especially assertive, but it ill behoves the hon. Lady to criticise the Government in similar terms.

Ms. Walley: Does the Minister accept that the chapter in the White Paper is not enough if it is not backed up by legislation in the Queen's Speech next week? After all, it is the Government who have the responsibility to do something about noise.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: In his introductory speech, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside set out the Government's commitments. However, the working party review report is available for public consultation. It would not be proper to rush into early legislation on some of the issues that require extensive consultation, not least with the environmental health departments which are in the front line in the struggle to contain excessive noise.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North made much of the fact that more money—or more resources as it always seems to called these days—is necessary to tackle the problem at local authority level. Westminster council is one of the best councils at responding to complaints about noise nuisance. It maintains a 24-hour response and it manages that with one of the lowest community charges in the country. It is not simply a question of spending more money; it is a question of according the problem the right priority.
The hon. Lady also referred to quiet neighbourhood schemes and she gave the idea a cautious welcome. I am not entirely sure that that idea is the complete solution to the problem. However, I believe that it will help. We are


funding a pilot scheme in London and the details will be announced shortly. It builds very much on the voluntary approach to noise control.
Not everyone emitting excessive noise does so deliberately to disturb his or her neighbours. If people in an area or a street could get together voluntarily and agree among themselves perhaps to give each other notice of a late-night party or to agree not to cut the grass on a Sunday or play the bagpipes after 10 pm, that would be good. It is possible for people to agree among themselves and avoid the need for outside statutory interference.
However, there are other forms of noise nuisance in which inescapably the Government must involve themselves more closely. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) spoke with predictable authority about railway noise and in particular about the problem facing his constituents who may be experiencing more noise on existing lines as a consequence of the channel tunnel and the London rail link.
Clearly my right hon. Friend is aware that that issue is being taken seriously by the Department of Transport, which is considering closely the noise implications of the channel tunnel scheme for those living in Kent. My right hon. Friend would agree that there is a difference between those faced, perhaps unexpectedly, with a new railway line and those who live alongside an existing railway line on which traffic may have increased. After all, they bought their houses and moved to the area in the knowledge that the railway line was there. However, I do not dissent from my right hon. Friend's view that a noise nuisance, however caused, is serious and that is why I am pleased that the Department of Transport is considering that aspect of the problem.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing also referred to the sources of rail noise. It is important that the construction and use of trains and rolling stock are now being addressed from a noise point of view in a European context. We already have the Road Vehicles Construction and Use Regulations and if we can produce something similar for railways and rolling stock, that would help reduce noise at source.
In that context, although no hon. Member raised this issue tonight, I believe that the idea of environmental labelling of consumer products generally might well take into account the potential in some items for noise emissions. When we get round to awarding environmental labels throughout the European Community, if one is considering things such as do-it-yourself equipment, the award of a label should take into account whether the equipment is noisy or whether some effort has been made in its design to moderate or suppress noise.
No one who heard my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) or the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) can fail to have been impressed by what their constituents go through in respect of neighbourhood noise—in particular, the specific problem of blues parties. The question whether such parties are a form of public entertainment is before the courts. Therefore, I cannot comment on that matter. However, I can draw attention to the passages in the noise working party report that deal with that issue.
The noise abatement notice procedure works reasonably well when there is a persistent and repeated source of noise. In those cases, it should be possible for the environmental health officers concerned to conclude that there is a noise nuisance and to issue a noise abatement notice. If that notice is ignored, a criminal offence may have been committed, and a magistrates court can fine those concerned up to a maximum of £2,000. In the case of noise nuisance from commercial or industrial premises the fine is being increased to £20,000.
I concede that special difficulties arise when noise nuisance may move about from house to house. That is one of the features of pay parties. It is not always known in advance which houses or premises will be used. Therefore, it is often impossible for environmental health officers to serve a noise abatement notice in time, or indeed even when the event is in progress.
The Batho working party has recommended that we examine the possibility of strict liability or of making it an offence to permit one's property to be used in a way that leads to the emission of excessive noise. We shall certainly look closely at that, but I repeat that the Batho working party and, so far, our own deliberations have concluded that it is not realistic or right to make noise nuisance a criminal offence in itself. The working party said that any attempt to define noise would eventually have to fall back on the concept of whether the noise concerned is a nuisance. If it is a nuisance, it is best dealt with by the fairly well-tried and tested procedures under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, as I think I am entitled to call it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham mentioned a number of issues, including dogs. I did not think that it would be possible for me to get through today without debating dogs in some form or another. My hon. Friend quite rightly said that the registration of dogs does not make them bark any less loudly, although I remind him that barking dogs are subject to control under the Control of Pollution Act and therefore fall to be controlled under the statutory nuisance provisions.
I also agree with my hon. Friend about piped music, which I regard as an abomination. However, naturally the thrust of his remarks concerned transport noise, and especially the noise from aircraft. Again, he speaks with great authority. It chiefly falls to another Department to respond to his comments, and I undertake to draw them to the attention of the Minister for Public Transport.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham also mentioned motor cycles, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson). Officials in my Department are shortly to meet representatives of a group of interested organisations that have prepared a draft code for off-the-road motor cycle sports. That may not be terribly relevant to Twickenham, but it is important in more rural areas. The general question of motor cycle noise is a classic instance of noise emitted by an internationally traded commodity. I can confirm that Britain is in the forefront of efforts being made in the European Community further to reduce and restrict noise from motor cycles and motor cycle silencers at source.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine) spoke with great legal knowledge about abatement notices. He asked whether excessive noise could be made a criminal offence; I believe that I have already dealt with that point. He also emphasised the key role of environmental health departments. That was also


recognised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), who concluded that they are usually too busy. I suppose that the same could also be said about the police, who are also stretched. It all comes back to priorities. In the Environmental Protection Act 1990 we have laid a duty on environmental health departments to respond to all reasonable complaints, and I hope that they will take that issue seriously.
As I expected, my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North raised the question of audible bird scarers. I am grateful for the constructive way in which he has contributed to the deliberations within my own Department about the working out of a code of practice. Coming, as I do, from a rural area, I recognise that bird scarers can be nuisance. My hon. Friend very fairly recognised that farmers do sometimes rely on them, but the Government are responding to that acknowledged difficulty by drawing up a code of practice. Two drafts have been prepared for consultation, and, after all the preliminary work and consultation has concluded, we intend to publish it. My hon. Friend will know that it does not itself have statutory force, but it is taken into account by courts in determining whether a source of noise amounts to statutory nuisance. This system of codes of practice gained the endorsement of the Batho working party.
I hope that I have managed to cover most of the points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made a telling point about tenancy law; I believe that, if local authority tenancy agreements require that no noise be caused, failure to comply can already lead to eviction without the liability to rehouse falling on the local authority concerned. However, I shall read his remarks in Hansard to see whether we have anything further to learn.
I thank all the hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, and if I may, I will take their remarks into account in the general consultation procedure that we are undertaking following publication of the Batho working party review.

The Lords Commissioner to the Treasury (Mr. Irvine Patnick): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION

Ordered,
That Mr. William Hague be discharged from the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Mr. Tony Durant be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Mr. Colin Wallace

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Sir Michael Marshall: I am grateful to you for the chance to catch your eye at this hour, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the support that I have received from my hon. Friends, although how long it will remain with me remains to be seen. I recognise in particular the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, who has taken a keen interest in the affairs of Mr. Colin Wallace and the Calcutt report.
I welcome both the Calcutt report and the Government's acceptance of its findings. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, who has had a long involvement in the matter, will remember that some of us submitted voluminous evidence on unfair dismissal, which was referred to as enforced resignation. He will know that the volume of files that had to be submitted over an eight-year period in my case was substantial. I pay tribute to Mr. David Calcutt QC for the way in which he approached his task.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick]

Sir Michael Marshall: In many ways it was a model study of this procedure. I am anxious to explore some aspects of both his conclusions and the Government's acceptance of them.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister and to Mr. Calcutt for their courtesy in advising me during the recess of the imminent publication of the report. I felt that it was right to bring the matter back to the House at the earliest possible opportunity.
My hon. Friend wrote to me on 13 September 1990. In that letter he referred to the terms of reference of the Calcutt inquiry, which I need not repeat, but its essential point was on the hearing of the Civil Service Appeal Board on 17 October 1975. In that letter my hon. Friend went on to accept Mr. Calcutt's views. It is interesting that he accepted those views, which in a sense drew on a widening of the terms of reference originally laid down. Mr. Calcutt was right to view the matter as he did.
To refer to the points put forward by Mr. Calcutt, it was clear that before the hearing of the CSAB on 17 October 1975 MOD officials nobbled—no other word fits the bill—the chairman of the board. That, in Mr. Calcutt's words
probably affected the outcome of the appeal.
My hon. Friend has said that he cannot reveal the nature of that communication but he has emphasised in writing and has repeated that it had nothing to do with Kincora boys' home or Clockwork Orange, the so-called dirty tricks campaign affecting leading politicians on both sides of St. George's channel in the Clockwork Orange exercise.
It was made plain that the full range of Mr. Wallace's work was not known to the CSAB at the time of the hearing and, therefore, neither the dismissal nor the alternative of enforced resignation was reasonable for what was described as an isolated incident of disclosure of a classified document.
Mr. Calcutt recommended that compensation should be based on the sum that would have been appropriate if the calculation had been made in 1975. The figure was to be amended to reflect the present-day value of that sum. It is still not clear to me on what basis that procedure was initiated. I do not know whether it was Mr. Calcutt's initiative, whether in some senses he had guidance or whether there was any known precedent in such a case, which I doubt. Perhaps my hon. Friend can assist me in the description of that procedure, not when he replies but in writing. It has a wider significance and I shall return to compensation later in my speech.
I am anxious to explore the two findings. First, following my hon. Friend's letter, I wrote to him on 14 September and he replied on 27 September. Naturally I felt that I must probe the nature of the communication from MOD officials. I recognise the sensitivity of full disclosure if security is concerned, but my hon. Friend has confirmed that neither Kincora nor Clockwork Orange was the subject of that disclosure and, following our latest exchange of correspondence, that the communication does not contain, in Mr. Wallace's words:
Information which he might have made available to higher authorities if he had been allowed to remain in his post.
That is an important assurance. My hon. Friend will accept that, for a long period, there has been concern about whether in some way Mr. Wallace's dismissal was to prevent him from giving authorities, including Ministers, information about activities which, it has been argued, was being suppressed.
The question remains: what type of communication was involved? It is reasonable to ask my hon. Friend whether we are speaking of a written or a verbal communication, whether it is some personnel assessment or whether the communication was of such a secret nature that he cannot give more information about it now, just as he asserts that the information could not have been made known at the hearing and therefore to Mr. Wallace.
Above all, can my hon. Friend assure the House that officials did not deliberately set out to mislead the CSAB? I hope that he can give a further idea in reply, if only of the most general sort. The nature of the information must have a bearing on the equity of the findings as a whole.
Secondly, the Calcutt inquiry found that the full range of Mr. Wallace's work was not known by the CSAB. Why did not officials provide the CSAB with a classified copy of Mr. Wallace's job description? Although my hon. Friend has said that revised CSAB and MOD procedures would rule out a repetition of what I have described as the nobbling of the CSAB, the question remains. I hope that he will reiterate assurances about revised procedures that would rule out a repetition of what I have described.
Consideration of the matter brings us back to a point on which I felt it right to write to my hon. Friend. The extent to which officials not only did not provide full and accurate information to the CSAB in 1975, but still refrain from disclosure of the full facts to Ministers worries me. My hon. Friend will recall that when I took up the concern about my constituent's unfair dismissal as long ago as my letter to the Prime Minister in December 1982 and throughout the following years in the hundreds of letters and meetings that I have had with my hon. Friend's predecessors and with him, I have raised one major

question that remains: surely throughout the whole period some MOD officials knew that the CSAB had been nobbled. Why did not they speak out? That could have ended the injustice a long time ago and prevented Ministers from unintentionally misleading the House.
In a wider sense, Mr. Wallace is entitled to ask, as he does, why senior officials who had worked with him in Northern Ireland for a long time did not speak out when Ministers were put in the impossible position of giving less than a full account of the true nature of his work and of his actions during the period of a previous Administration.
The third part of the Calcutt report deals with equity and compensation. Mr. Calcutt suggested a figure of £30,000. It is no part of my brief tonight to argue in detailed financial terms on Mr. Wallace's behalf. He has taken legal advice. In some senses this matter could be regarded as sub judice, but I am not a lawyer and I am not clear whether that is the case. I have the impression—I hope that my hon. Friend can help to clarify the situation—that this is, in some ways, breaking new ground in regard to compensation for something that is not regarded as part of industrial tribunal activity as in commercial life. In many ways it is unparalleled in civil service experience.
When my hon. Friend comes to reply or, if necessary, to write to me later, I hope that he will outline fairly the options that are now open to my constituent because he is far from clear. I, too, find that this is a difficult situation to assess.
It is fair to ask some direct questions relating to compensation. First, upon what basis was the Calcutt calculation selected using 1975 as a base? Is it not clear, as I argued earlier, that the admitted official misdeed was compounded by the long period of silence by officials who could have put the matter right much earlier? What account can or should be taken of those and other circumstances?
Mr. Wallace asserts, for example, that his wife, who was employed as a civil servant at the time, was also made unemployed as a result of his enforced resignation. That is a matter on which it is only right that he should argue rather than me. However, I have observed Mr. Wallace's wife for many years in which she has faced a particular problem as the reputation of her husband and the life of her family have been torn apart. In all honesty, I must tell the House that it has been her steadfast support and total belief in her husband's integrity that have been a key factor in my concern to continue inquiries during the past eight years.
Surely a fair-minded employer would want to take such factors into account. I have no reason to suppose that the Government do not want to act like a fair-minded employer, but how to make good a wrong that has been done is a somewhat grey area. Therefore, I am seeking to discover the flexibility that exists—the extent to which the Government and my hon. Friend will keep an open mind.
I recognise, of course, that it would be unreasonable to expect my hon. Friend to make promises tonight. The matter will require careful consideration and advice might suggest that a legal recourse is the way through. I should prefer to find some other more reasonable negotiated settlement if such a mechanism were possible. I am not clear whether an equivalent to arbitration could apply.
It is fair to tell my hon. Friend that in all my dealings with Mr. Wallace he has stressed time and again that his concern is not to damage the security services of our


nation. but to put right a number of wrongs. He has argued that some of those wrongs persist in terms of wider matters that I have not touched on tonight. I seek to end as I began, by expressing a particular concern over an unfair dismissal and an enforced resignation, which is now clearly accepted by the Government and which they want to put right.
I hope that my hon. Friend can assure my constituent of the Government's willingness to keep looking at the matter with an open mind. I hope that they will consider the relevant factors, some of which I have tried to sketch in tonight. I know that the wider issues will continue to be argued over, but in terms of the enforced resignation—I think of it as an unfair dismissal—I ask my hon. Friend to confirm that the Government will ensure that justice is seen to be done.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) on initiating this debate. I should like to pay tribute to the way in which he has consistently applied himself as Mr. Wallace's constituency Member to ensure that his case is dealt with fully and fairly. My hon. Friend has asked questions in the House and written to me on many occasions. We have been able to give sensible consideration to the issues as a result. He has shown an energetic concern for the interests of his constituent, genuinely seeking after the truth without being diverted by the more sensationalist aspects that have attracted others.
As the House will be aware, this is not the first time that we have debated aspects of Mr. Wallace's case. Indeeed, the ground has been well covered both in debate, in answer to parliamentary questions and in correspondence with right hon. and hon. Members. Copies of many of those letters have been placed in the Library of the House. The issues which have attracted interest—and which fall to me to deal with—occurred more than 15 years ago and the present renewal of interest stems largely from the steps I took in January this year to correct inaccurate information that had been given, mistakenly, to hon. Members.
When it was realised that there had been such inaccuracies, the Government commissioned an inquiry by a senior civil servant—himself wholly unconnected with the matters at issue—to ascertain how and why they had occurred. The conclusions and recommendations of that inquiry have been published. The inquiry confirmed that inaccurate information was given inadvertently, and that the inaccuracies arose in part because of the long passage of time since the period in which related events occurred or were alleged to have occurred. That inquiry cast no new light on Mr. Wallace's wider allegations that there was a campaign to smear members of the House and that there was a cover-up by the security forces of information about homosexual abuse of boys at Kincora.
Those measures to correct the public record have generated considerable speculation about Mr. Wallace's more sensational allegations. It seems to have been forgotten that nothing in the corrections made to the public record, or in the work carried out in preparing the corrections, lend any substance to those allegations. I hope that the House will acknowledge the efforts made by this Government to deal fairly with issues that arose in the time of other Administrations.
I should remind the House that, as has frequently been made clear, nothing has been found, when reviewing the relevant information, to justify allegations of wrongdoing by Crown servants. Reviewing the basis on which inaccurate information was given to hon. Members has shown only that genuine mistakes were made. The passage of time since Mr. Wallace left the Ministry of Defence in 1975 was a key element in the failure of the departmental "collective memory" which caused Ministers to be given inaccurate information that was in turn passed on to hon. Members. The problems which can arise in identifying relevant material amongst the vast amount generated annually within the Department do not excuse such failures. But equally such failures do not justify ill-found assumptions that there may have been a conspiracy against Mr. Wallace.
The Government also commissioned of their own volition the inquiry that Mr. David Calcutt, QC, undertook into the presentation of Mr. Wallace's case—

Mr. Ken Livingstone: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hamilton: —when he appealed to the Civil Service Appeal Board against his dismissal from the Ministry of Defence in 1975. Mr. Calcutt's advice and recommendations were published in September this year.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel for his welcome for that report. Few have given recognition to the Government's determination to deal appropriately with events that took place 15 years ago; rather, the Calcutt report has been used to justify renewed speculation. It is of particular note that there seems to be an assumption in some quarters that Mr. Calcutt's inquiry has provided the Government with new information that requires further revision of the Government's position in relation to Mr. Wallace's allegations. That is not so.
In order to satisfy themselves about Mr. Wallace's case the Government have had to look back over more than 15 years, but I will spare the House a full rehearsal and confine myself to the situation some 12 months ago when Ministers were alerted to the fact that inaccurate information had been given to the House. That realisation led to a careful review of all available information in preparation for the statement which I volunteered on 30 January this year correcting those errors.
When the errors came to light, Ministers were made aware that officials had in 1975 been in private communication with the chairman of the Civil Service Appeal Board hearing. Such communication was not part of the formal procedures and it was immediately recognised that the communication could, with hindsight, be held to be unsatisfactory. Accordingly, Ministers decided to commission an entirely independent review of the manner in which Mr. Wallace's case had been presented to the Civil Service Appeal Board. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and I concluded that Mr. David Calcutt—a distinguished lawyer—would be a very suitable person to undertake that inquiry. He was asked to consider whether Mr. Wallace suffered any injustice from the way in which his case was presented to the Civil Service Appeal Board. We determined from the outset—I must emphasise this point—that Mr. Calcutt's conclusions and recommendations would be published. This was done in full awareness that Mr. Calcutt's inquiry would touch on sensitive issues.
The Government have adhered to that course. Mr. Calcutt did conclude that two aspects of the presentation of Mr. Wallace's case were unsatisfactory. First, he advised that the private communication—and here I quote from the written advice which he submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence—"should not have happened". And he added that what occurred probably affected the outcome of the appeal. Secondly, he concluded that it was unsatisfactory that the full range of Mr. Wallace's duties was not made plain to the board by the Ministry of Defence itself. He recommended that compensation be paid to Mr. Wallace. The Government have accepted his advice and recommendation, and compensation of £30,000 has been paid to Mr. Wallace.
Mr. Wallace has suggested that some of his difficulties have resulted from a form of conspiracy against him arising from what he claims was his involvement in, and ultimate withdrawal from, improper activities which he has alleged to have taken place in the early 1970s. I am aware that some are tempted to read Mr. Calcutt's advice—particularly the two aspects of the handling of the appeal which he concluded to be unsatisfactory-as giving credence to Mr. Wallace's suggestion. I have no reason to support such views.
Before dealing with Mr. Calcutt's conclusions, I wish to remind the House of the circumstances in whch disciplinary action was taken against Mr. Wallace. Mr. Wallace was employed at headquarters Northern Ireland from 1969 to 1975. During that period he rose from being an assistant information officer to the rank of senior information officer. His promotion reflected the very considerable effort and enthusiasm which he brought to bear on the work allocated to him in an onerous post and in a demanding environment. After six years in Northern Ireland, he was posted to the Army's headquarters, north-west district, with effect from February 1975.
Mr. Wallace occupied a responsible and sensitive position in Northern Ireland, with duties which had come to include the unattributable briefing of journalists. This was a delicate role but one in which Mr. Wallace had both military and civilian superiors whom he could consult on any problems. Terrorism was at a peak and it was fully understood by everyone working in Northern Ireland that it was essential to be particularly circumspect in any dealings with journalists. A good deal of trust had to be placed in the absolute integrity of those who carried out such duties, since any indiscretion or breach of trust was liable to undermine the success of anti-terrorist measures.
A classified document was passed to a journalist. Mr. Wallace was questioned. At first he denied responsibility. Then he admitted it. It became clear that this was a premeditated action and that he had neither sought approval for it from his superiors beforehand nor informed them of it afterwards. He had every opportunity to seek permission: he did not do so.
It was and remains within the powers of the Ministry of Defence to dismiss a civil servant for the type of disclosure to which Mr. Wallace admitted. When he appealed against dismissal, the Ministry of Defence accepted the view of the Civil Service Appeal Board that, given his previous good service, his resignation would be an acceptable alternative.
As many hon. Members may be aware, the Civil Service Appeal Board is an independent appeals body for the civil

service, set up in the early 1970s, which deals with appeals from civil servants who have been dismissed or who have retired early. Its role is to decide whether a Department's decision to dismiss was fair. If it decides that the Department's decision was unfair, it may recommend that the appellant should be reinstated, or it may specify that compensation should be paid. If it considers that some other action is more appropriate, it may recommend accordingly. If the board recommends reinstatement, it is up to the Department whether to accept the recommendation. But, if such a recommendation is rejected, the board then decides whether to award compensation. The Department must pay any compensation awarded by the board.
Each appeal is heard by a panel of three. The chairman of the hearing is always the chairman of the board or one of the deputy chairmen. At the time of the Wallace appeal there was only one deputy chairman. The other two are members of the board, one drawn from a panel of people nominated by the official side, civil service management, and one from a panel nominated by the trade union side.
The operating procedures of the Civil Service Appeal Board are set out in some detail in the relevant provisions of the civil service code. The board issues guidance notes to Departments and appellants based on those provisions. How the board operates within those established procedures is a matter for the board itself.
The Government, with the benefit of hindsight, decided to consider whether during the dismissal and appeal proceedings there had been aspects of the handling of the case by the Ministry of Defence which may have given rise to any injustice. We commissioned an independent inquiry to ensure that an impartial assessment would be available.
I turn now to the two aspects of the presentation of Mr. Wallace's case which Mr. Calcutt identified as unsatisfactory. First, there is the matter of the private communication with the chairman of the Civil Service Appeal Board hearing. It is a fact that the board was approached off the record in Mr. Wallace's case. That private communication was outside the formal procedures. Mr. Calcutt has advised that the private communication should not have occurred.

Mr. Livingstone: Were they members of MI5?

Mr. Hamilton: The Government have accepted that advice and his recommendation that Mr. Wallace be paid compensation of £30,000.
I have been pressed to say what was the nature and content of that communication and I have declined to provide such details. I have stated that it was concerned with sensitive information which I would not wish to make public. That remains the case. I intend no discourtesy to the House in maintaining that position. The House will recognise that successive Governments have taken the view that, where issues of particular sensitivity are involved, it may be inappropriate to reveal publicly any or all of the relevant information. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel, who raised this matter in his speech, that there is no way that this information was set out to mislead the Civil Service Appeal Board.
The decision to withhold such information has not been taken lightly in the present case, not least because, as I am only too aware, it could be misinterpreted. But I do not believe that there is sufficient cause to disclose sensitive information. The content of that communication was


sensitive and, as I explained in the letter which I sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel on 13 September, a copy of which has been placed in the Library:
For the same reasons as those which inhibited the Ministry of Defence from deploying the content of the communication openly at the hearing, I am not prepared to go into detail about it now. I can, however, say that it had nothing whatever to do with either Kincora or the smearing of politicians.
I am not willing to add to that statement.
As the House may be aware, Mr. Wallace's solicitors have made a complaint to the Metropolitan police. It is for the police and the prosecuting authorities to decide what action it would be appropriate to take in response to the complaint made to them on Mr. Wallace's behalf. Clearly it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on this matter.
I have also been pressed to comment on Mr. Calcutt's conclusion that it was unsatisfactory that the Ministry of Defence did not make clear to the Civil Service Appeal Board the full range of duties that Mr. Wallace was required to undertake. The Government accept this. Nevertheless, in case it should be supposed that nothing was done to inform the Civil Service Appeal Board in that respect, I will summarise what mention was made of Mr. Wallace's wider duties. First, in submitting its statement to the Civil Service Appeal Board, the Ministry of Defence referred specifically to the fact that his duties had come to include unattributable briefing.

The motion having been made at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.